Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:10:15 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Toshio 'ADAM' Kudo" <adamtk AT altavista DOT net>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Subject: Re: patches to 2.02
In-Reply-To: <199812171038.FAA04787@pop02.globecomm.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.981217130555.2441A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Toshio 'ADAM' Kudo wrote:

> >What are the implications of this on other DPMI hosts?  Aren't we
> >introducing here something that relies on CWSDPMI features?  Charles,
> >can you comment on that?
> 
>   Sorry, I don't understand fully.

The changes I refered to cited CWSDPMI-specific behavior.  I was under 
the impression that these changes assume something about what the DPMI 
host does when the call to __dpmi_get_coprocessor_status returns a 
failure indication.  I am worried that other DPMI hosts (which also don't 
support __dpmi_get_coprocessor_status) might behave differently, and that 
setting DPMIfpustate to 1 is not the right thing to do with these other 
DPMI hosts.

Thanks for the rest of information.