Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:43:16 +1100
From: Bill Currie <billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz>
Subject: Re: cwsdpmi r4 beta
In-reply-to: <9710150352.AA13081@clio.rice.edu>
To: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann), djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-id: <199710150440.RAA15774@teleng1.tait.co.nz gatekeeper.tait.co.nz>
Organization: Tait Electronics Limited
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <199710150148 DOT OAA14993 AT teleng1 DOT tait DOT co DOT nz DOT gatekeeper DOT tait DOT co DOT nz>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz>
Precedence: bulk

On 14 Oct 97 at 22:52, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> > How would I go about testing [VDS]? I don't think I have any 16 bit dma 
> > devices at home, and 8 bit dma doesn't seem to work above 1 M (You'ld 
> > think it would on an AT, the page registers didn't HAVE to stay 4 
> > bit), or am I missing something?.
> 
> Testing is one of the issues.  I want a test program which uses many
> of the features, be able to test it on W95, make sure the test
> program seems sound, then make sure it does the right things with
> the CWSDPMI implementation.  I have a sound card which supports
> 16bit DMA, but I am really too busy to spend much time on the
> testing.

I'll see what I can do (I've got the VDS somewhere, and if not, I 
imagin it's on x2ftp).

> 
> For example, VDS on W95 seems to always return a 63.5K length DMA
> transfer buffer - we ought to do the same (we currently return 16K
> or 32K).  So my obsession with getting it right may delay getting it
> officially into a release.  With my primary platform anymore (NT)
> not even supporting VDS, I'll probably do more supervising than
> doing...

Is the size of the buffer really an issue? Anyway, I've written some 
code that tries (and usually succeeds) in allocating a 64.0000k,64k 
aligned memory buffer in dos memory, and not one single undocumented 
feature is used (other than the implicit non-move of the resize 
function).

> 
> Then the real question comes up ... should the effort be put into
> MWDPMI instead?  I actually think so, since the compiler is much
> higher quality and more available to everyone wanting to hack...
> 

Yes, I think mwdpmi is more important (another DPMI 1.0 server!!) and 
the VDS effort can go into that (though cwsdpmi could currently be 
used as a testbed for VDS).  BTW, ootb, I got mwdpmi to run my 
programs, but it randomly resets my computer (tripple faults I 
assume, possibly during mode switching (my guess)).
Bill
--
Leave others their otherness.