From: "Charles Sandmann" <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: bound DPMI
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:49:21
Organization: Aspen Technology, Inc.
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <39057831.sandmann@clio.rice.edu>
References: <8e3iqo$i6j$1 AT antares DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dcloan.hou.aspentech.com
X-Trace: selma.aspentech.com 956677981 19569 10.32.115.107 (25 Apr 2000 15:53:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: postmaster AT aspentech DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Apr 2000 15:53:01 GMT
X-NewsEditor: ED-1.5.8
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> Why is it that if the extender can be bound to the executable, it
> doesn't support virtual memory (like PMODE/DJ and WDOSX) while those
> which can't be bound does support virtual memory (like CWSDPMI)?

Mostly since I've never had time to merge the DOS executable memory
management the stub does and CWSDPMI does.  They are also built using
different compilers which are incompatible.  There is a fix - the 
stub for PMODE could be used to call CWSDPMI routines instead of the
PMODE ones.

The biggest issue is time to do it.  I don't have any.