Sender: vheyndri AT rug DOT ac DOT be
Message-Id: <3507CAC3.CF9@rug.ac.be>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:45:07 +0100
From: Vik Heyndrickx <Vik DOT Heyndrickx AT rug DOT ac DOT be>
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: Bill Currie <bill AT taniwha DOT tssc DOT co DOT nz>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Temporary files considered unsafe
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980311132743 DOT 7959C-100000 AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> 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. 

That is what I said too.

> > 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.

First an update on the STR instruction:
- it is valid regardless of CPL, according to official documentation and
according to tests I performed.

The second: all DPMI programs share the same processor task under W95,
meaning that a prg's TSS is definitely not a good PID. Nor is the LDT
selector.

> 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.

Packing different values into an 8+3 filename is not really a problem
(assuming that the information content of these values together is not
larger than 39^8).

-- 
 \ Vik /-_-_-_-_-_-_/   
  \___/ Heyndrickx /          
   \ /-_-_-_-_-_-_/