X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1567415002;
	bh=LeRjmgfr0yMfciYwJtr4z1aHcAK1rRIgAyqeG3TfIyk=;
	h=In-Reply-To:To:Subject:From:Date:References:Message-ID;
	b=mqUSdy1EZfzXMPifJerUapbJPyl4eWwSQDox0Fqy3taWfT35gDTJTncVqxCn/7Oiw
	OGEsaKLnR1N04pG9hDBd33ANGyxK/H4Ts0GR5zYN6gee6fa9Ow4hapZRwoVFux/p3v
	rDWguCGS7ljlGVlIb4PkntvCLZEFW7RsK2t5iE6E=
Authentication-Results:	mxback8j.mail.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.ru
From:	"stsp (stsp2 AT yandex DOT ru) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: cwsdpmi borland compatible? possible! (Re: [PATCH] exec: fix
	inversions in leak detection logic)
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
References:	<964e3268-2f75-ee73-ab5a-b01bf1aadb98 AT yandex DOT ru>
	<qjb14m$1kqj$1 AT gioia DOT aioe DOT org>
	<7209026e-1f1b-e590-00a3-4ed1a424cc0d AT yandex DOT ru>
	<qjfkbp$1o2c$1 AT gioia DOT aioe DOT org>
	<bd347f78-b176-6992-291c-2e542241efa1 AT yandex DOT ru>
	<d97686df-50ba-5210-519a-abd80f2d190f AT yandex DOT ru> <838sr87yty DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
Message-ID:	<bf9153a9-d741-d081-8dac-8c51b4789a19@yandex.ru>
Date:	Mon, 2 Sep 2019 12:03:21 +0300
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<838sr87yty.fsf@gnu.org>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id x8293wcI012536
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

01.09.2019 19:42, Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] 
пишет:
>> From: "stsp (stsp2 AT yandex DOT ru) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" 
>> <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
>> Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 19:07:49 +0300
>>
>> Now the question is: does anyone here think it would
>> be a good idea to make cwsdpmi borland-compatible?
>> (and MS-compatible, and whatever else)
> Are there any downsides?
>
> Also, how large would the changes be?

After digging through the code a bit, here's the
more precise list of features and needed cwsdpmi
changes:

1. 32bit borland compatibility.
0xc00/0xc01 on cwsdpmi side and quite some work on
my side. 32bit support seems incomplete in my code,
but requires only trivial changes on cwsdpmi side.

2. 16bit borland compatibility.
All the above + full 16bit support (oops!) + "small extension"
on cwsdpmi side and almost no work on my side (16bit
support looks the most complete in my code).

3. 16bit MS compatibility.
All the above + function 0xd00 (oops!) + who knows what
on cwsdpmi side, and in my code looks the most
incomplete and tricky part. But MS support is not
very useful and can be easily implemented directly
in cwsdpmi, if need be. Its probably too difficult to
implement as a standalone app, to be worth a try.

- Raw text -