Date:	Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:06:40 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu
Message-Id:	<7458-Thu26Apr2001100639+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	theowl AT freemail DOT c3 DOT hu, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<10104260336.AA18836@clio.rice.edu> (sandmann@clio.rice.edu)
Subject:	Re: win2000/ntvdm/djgpp (fwd)
References:	<10104260336 DOT AA18836 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:36:21 -0500 (CDT)
> 
> > So could we please talk about this some more?  Why do we need to issue
> > a PM interrupt, and why do we need to use the PM selector of our PSP?
> > Isn't __dpmi_int with the real-mode PSP segment good enough?
> 
> I'm guessing it needs to be the PM selector on the basis of the 
> previous discussions.

But I'd guess that NTVDM should react in the same way to a __dpmi_int
with a real-mode PSP segment, no?  I think it has to: what if someone
loaded a TSR into the DOS box, and that TSR would play the usual
set-PSP games?

Setting a real-mode PSP via __dpmi_int is a much safer operation,
because in the ``normal'' cases (not on W2K) it is simply a no-op.
So, if at all possible, I'd like to use it.

> We could also just do the setting if the DOS/Windows version made
> sense :-P

The problem is that W2K is indistinguishable from NT4, as far as DJGPP
programs are concerned (at least we don't know any reasonable way to
tell one from the other).  So at least NT4 will have to see the same
calls.  And, of course, testing for Windows version will bloat the
executables, although not by much.

- Raw text -