Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:33:58 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Esa A E Peuha <peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
Reply-To: Esa DOT Peuha AT Helsinki DOT FI
To: Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: 32-bit DPMI host
In-Reply-To: <9709301407.AA15374@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.971002102539.11599A-100000@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> Morten Welinder started that effort about 2 years ago, and was about 1/3
> finished before he and I both got buried in real life responsibilites which
> prevented us from finishing the re-write of CWSDPMI into MWDPMI, a real
> DPMI 1.0 host, with minimal DOS memory footprint.  There was a minimal
> amount of code written in DJASM to bootstrap the 32-bit DPMI kernel, which
> was written in GCC.  If anyone wants to futz with DPMI, this is the 
> project to start from, period.  Morten writes awesome code.
> 
Right then, I'll take a look at that.

> The rest of your layout sounds like returning to the extender concept,
> which was a nightmare for maintenance, and I strongly disagree with it.
> The ONLY way to communicate with any non-DOS environment (like Windows, NT,
> OS/2, DOSEMU, ...) is via DPMI.  Re-writing the entire libc to be non-DPMI
> compliant would be a disaster.
> 
I wasn't suggesting that every program should be loaded that way, just the
DPMI host. Was there something wrong with this?

Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/