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; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
	s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date:
	mime-version; bh=WhzPA+XJgWefO0Dgvh3q6wrF+EMQXIGp2J3F462X1bk=; b=MboZYpLaqzaJ
	lRfe95j5ZYKb8Ie50QVe5A2VvdgodL2ClZqJ4djtQ7WXNnwQuYXtd4QftlNhouizoEdo5QoG+vOmd
	S9WrT/O50HfgXPcpacy2a/CcafreOrwJZAhGePZRndegvBtb5jcd4oF8tfVNezhcHgCE3iosmTTm9
	FMcA9JpBXDfeluPzYA6qG+4RBdxuiykeBVCePRxvGE08UeUBMNzOKwOx8EaiTkQsrLb/2ZiUrBq3Q
	1uRctdJlIPU2HPvmytay5qxslDpGwtPbc/er5S5xXAE+tJjIArT+qUlF9RRMDMg3Vjq8VUdiW3yxf
	IjhGLA/qd9c4GrfMm3wkhw==;
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2022 08:24:44 +0300
Message-Id: <83r11sy6ar.fsf@gnu.org>
From: "Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:
	<CAA2C=vBOy1Yj26JqRHMNjHqv9DE19wuTDZOA0Rq7s0B1xeoq0w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	(djgpp AT delorie DOT com)
Subject: Re: BUGREPORT: ___dpmi_get_raw_mode_switch_addr() modifies SI
 register and doesn't save it
References: <3c11b033 DOT 75 DOT 182562fe32f DOT Coremail DOT lostxwind AT 163 DOT com>
 <414f3e66 DOT a1 DOT 182565154ec DOT Coremail DOT lostxwind AT 163 DOT com> <CAA2C=vCKayVtwbC7xaPtcfZ2a6PDPLAa8K2diCRN52=yi9R_Og AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <83b98192-9ce6-495d-8eaf-9c4e6906cb5dn AT googlegroups DOT com> <CAA2C=vBOy1Yj26JqRHMNjHqv9DE19wuTDZOA0Rq7s0B1xeoq0w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2022 07:14:22 +0300
> 
> On 8/6/22, Stefan Ring (stefanrin AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]
> <djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> >> src\libc\dpmi\api\d0306.S, line 2-line 4.
> >>
> >> code before fix:
> >> #define USE_EBX
> >> #define USE_EDI
> >> #include "dpmidefs.h"
> >>
> >> possible fix:
> >> #define USE_EBX
> >> #define USE_EDI
> >> #define USE_ESI
> >> #include "dpmidefs.h"
> >
> > Yes, looks very reasonable, given that the DPMI call explicitly changes
> > (e)si.
> 
> OK then, is the following patch OK to apply?

Yes, thanks.