Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 16:02:04 +0200 (MET DST) From: Mark Habersack Reply-To: grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl To: Charles Sandmann cc: robert DOT hoehne AT mathematik DOT tu-chemnitz DOT de, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: DJGPP Installation Diagnostic Program In-Reply-To: <9609171345.AA13337@clio.rice.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Charles Sandmann wrote: >> Something else has just came to my mind: what if the user runs djverify on 286 >> or 86 machine. I mean, I have never run any DJGPP program on such. Does the >> stub say something? > >The stub notices that 32-bit DPMI is not available, tries to load CWSDPMI, >which does the processor type test, then issues a message if the machine >doesn't have enough bits ... Then the stub fails with a No DPMI message. Well this is a little messy, I think. Shouldn't the processor-check code be moved to the stub? If it detects a pre-i386 CPU it should gracefully terminate with nice message. >Both CWSDPMI and the stub are 8088 clean (well, they have been at times, >who knows this week) up to the 80386 processor test. > >I haven't checked PMODE to see if it's 8088 clean or how it behaves on >an XT. When you mess up and get a 186+ instruction in the code it just >hangs on an XT... So, at least, for diagnostic program such behavior is unacceptable. ********************************************************************** So if you ask me how do I feel inside, I could honestly tell you we've been taken on a very long ride. And if my owners let me have free time some day, with all good intention I would probably run away! Clutching the short straw... ******************* http://ananke.amu.edu.pl/~grendel ****************