Message-Id: <199612282157.WAA10028@math.amu.edu.pl> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Mark Habersack" Organization: Home, sweet home (Poznan, Poland) To: DJ Delorie , djgpp AT delorie DOT com Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 22:57:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: DPMI incorporation... Reply-to: grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl Once upon a time (on 27 Dec 96 at 19:10) DJ Delorie said: > > DPMI was designed for i386+ only and it would never run on > > iAPX286- machines. > > Not true. See http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/doc/dpmi/ch4.1.html > where it states "0=16-bit application" and "if running on an 80386 > or later". DPMI supports 80286 and higher processors. However, it > only supports the 32-bit operations on 32-bit processors (of course) True. I must've overlooked this statement. Nevertheless, I have never seen any successful implementation of DPMI for 286 machines (perhaps Windoze 3.xx was such?). Even if there were a server for 286 it would provide only a limited set of DPMI 0.9 functions.There is no provision in 286 to implement any of the page-related functions, nor the debbuging-related ones. > > DPMI heavily relies on features found only in i386+ machines (like > > paged memory). > > Not true. Even the DPMI in Windows95 doesn't support the paged > memory functions of DPMI 1.0. My fault. I used a wrong expression. What I meant was that DPMI uses i386 memory pages to implement virtual memory. This is opposed to the 286 VM scheme where memory is swapped out in segments, not pages. _http://ananke.amu.edu.pl/~grendel_________________________ The more I see, the more I hear, the more I find fewer answers. I close my mind, I shut it out but you know it's getting harder to calm down, to reason out, to come to terms with what it's all about! I'm uptight, can't sleep at night I can't pretend everything's alright! My ideals, my sanity they seem to be deserting me but to stand up and fight I know we have six million reasons!