Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:29:50 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Vik Heyndrickx <Vik DOT Heyndrickx AT rug DOT ac DOT be>
cc: Bill Currie <bill AT taniwha DOT tssc DOT co DOT nz>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Temporary files considered unsafe
In-Reply-To: <3506610C.6A0C@rug.ac.be>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980311132743.7959C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Vik Heyndrickx wrote:

> Sure! But, I think what Bill means to say that Windows does the
> multitasking itself without using the processor's multitasking features
> (at least not the task switching mechanism). Therefore all DOS tasks
> would be executed in the same processor task, and yield therefore the
> same TSS-selector (if you can get at it).

I don't think the TSS is required because of multi-tasking.  Since 
programs can be nested, you might need a separate TSS for each program, 
even though only one seems to run at any given time.

> Reusage of an ID is not what I see defined under 'unique'. The only
> thing that is required is that two running processes don't have the same
> ID. When a process was terminated and restarted again, it can perfectly
> get the same ID. In 'nix this is AFAIK not different.

Then VM id + PSP address seems the way to go.  The only issue is to find 
a good way to pack these into a 8+3 name.