delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/07/03/03:12:17

Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 09:16:24 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Nimrod Abing <n_abing AT hotmail DOT com>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Any other PMODE/DJ users out there???
In-Reply-To: <20000703032934.75812.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000703091601.20850F-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Nimrod Abing wrote:

> The program is a free PKUNZIP
> replacement that I am developing. It uses ZLIB (which to my knowledge
> uses plenty of memory) and it is written in C++. The reason I bound the
> program to PMODSTUB is because I want plain DOS users to be able to run
> my program (yep plenty of them around here).

Beware: binding programs with PMODE/DJ is known to have bad effects
when that program is invoked from another DJGPP program which uses
CWSDPMI.  I found that out when I tested unzip32.exe (available from
DJGPP FTP sites), which is also bound to PMODE/DJ, for the same
reasons you did.  When I invoked it from `redir', it frequently
crashed/rebooted/hung my machine.  I'm guessing that there's some bug
in PMODE that triggers a disaster in CWSDPMI.

Note that plain DOS users will be able to run your program even
without PMODE, provided that you supply CWSDPMI with it, and package
them both into a self-extracting executable.  While this is not an
ideal solution, CWSDPMI is tested much more than PMODE, and so is more
reliable.  In addition, a memory-starved machine might run PMODE out
of physical RAM.

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019