From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <9609171455.AA16327@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: DJGPP Installation Diagnostic Program
To: grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 09:55:48 -0600 (CDT)
Cc: robert DOT hoehne AT mathematik DOT tu-chemnitz DOT de, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.95.960917155942.21064A-100000@ananke.amu.edu.pl> from "Mark Habersack" at Sep 17, 96 04:02:04 pm
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 724       

> 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.

For the production stub, we wanted to minimize the amount of code there.
Getting a message that an 80386 required, then no DPMI, should be enough
to scare off the prehistoric CPU users.  I don't think it's a problem.

> >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, someone needs to find an XT and test v2.01/cwsdpmi r3/pmode and see
what works.