Message-Id:	<199812171359.IAA15907@pop02.globecomm.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Denshin 8 Go V1.9b1
Date:	Thu, 17 Dec 1998 22:59:23 +0900
X-My-Real-Login-Name:	adamtk AT altavista DOT net; mail.iname.com
From:	"Toshio 'ADAM' Kudo" <adamtk AT altavista DOT net>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Subject:	Re: patches to 2.02
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

  Hi and KON-NICHIWA.

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>The changes I refered to cited CWSDPMI-specific behavior.  I was under 
>the impression that these changes assume something about what the DPMI 
>host does when the call to __dpmi_get_coprocessor_status returns a 
>failure indication.  I am worried that other DPMI hosts (which also don't 
>support __dpmi_get_coprocessor_status) might behave differently, and that 
>setting DPMIfpustate to 1 is not the right thing to do with these other 
>DPMI hosts.

  Thanks. I understand.
  DPMI 0.9 specification says, must returns only carry flag set if
error.
 # Wow! DPMI 1.0 says return carry set and ax must contains negative
 # number as error code.
  But, __dpmi_get_coprocessor_status must return -1 if error occures. 
Please see src/libc/dpmi/api/dpmidefs.h, src/libc/dpmi/api/d0e00.S.
So, that patch will work well on all DPMI hosts, I think.
  *If*, there is a DPMI host that not support 0E00h and never returns
carry flag set, ... mmm ... I don't think about that :-).


>Thanks for the rest of information.

  My pleasure :).

--------
 ADAM, as Toshio KUDO
 GCG02632 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp / adamtk AT altavista DOT net

- Raw text -