Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:52:25 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Mark Habersack <grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Reply-To: grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl
To: Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
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: <9609171455.AA16327@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.960918125001.170E-100000@ananke.amu.edu.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Charles Sandmann wrote:

>> 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.
Agree as for the production stub. But the djverify should be as clear as sun
saying where's the pain.

>> >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.
;-)))) I have an ancient Panasonic laptop with V20 processor. I can test it. A
friend of mine has a "portable" IBM XT from 1985 ;-)))) It still works... And
even has 10MB HD! ;-)))


**********************************************************************
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 ****************