Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:29:23 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Esa A E Peuha <peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: That crash message from the core dumper.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.30.0104050954110.13452-100000@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010405122711.11266D-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Esa A E Peuha wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > No, 0x10ffff is right from this point of view as well: the DPMI spec
> > requires that the size be an integral multiple of 4KB, i.e. the size
> > must be 0x110000, not 0x10fff0.
> 
> But only if it's greater than 64 kB.

Yes, of course--and the _dos_ds segment is indeed of the large kind.

> Maybe we should print
> the limit so that this restriction is obvious, like "0010f---", instead
> of "0010ffff".

I think the exact number makes it easier to compare register values with 
the limit to see what register is garbled.  Whoever looks at the values 
should know the DPMI basics ;-)