Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 15:47:12 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Subject: Re: NT4 DPMI BUG (303h, Allocate Real-Mode Callback)
In-Reply-To: <199912071113.MAA00290@spica-144.lu.erisoft.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991207154551.822A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Martin Stromberg wrote:

> > One other issue about the solution proposed by Peter: it sets the
> > limit of the additional selector to 32h (since it only spans the
> > real-mode registers' data structure.  This makes the segment be
> > byte-granular (as opposed to page granularity used by DJGPP for all
> > other selectors).  Can this cause any problems?  Is it safer to define
> > a page-granular segment?
> 
> Isn't it possible to have page granularity with the limit 0x32?

AFAIK, for page-granular segments, the limit is given in pages, not in 
bytes.  So 0x32 is 0x32 4KB pages.

Charles, am I right?