Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 09:49:41 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
cc: Andrew Cottrell <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Windows 2000/sbrk
In-Reply-To: <10108011646.AA15315@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010802094904.28510A-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 Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> My first thought is to add a new flag for the non-move sbrk() which will
> prevent memory wrapped dpmi blocks from being used.  This flag would always
> be forced on if running on NT.  It would also be useful option on Win9X 
> systems to prevent weird selectors that span the entire memory space. 
> This is probably easier to implement, but since we sbrk() the stack before 
> calling any setup code we would either leave a window of breakage or would
> need to move dos version queries to crt0 :-P
> 
> My next thought was to check the limit we set, and if it didn't "stick" to
> toss the block and try again.  Looking at how each bit is carefully crafted
> in crt0 makes be believe this will cause some hair loss.

I don't understand the difference between these two alternatives
(_are_ they alternatives?).

As I've said earlier, I don't see anything bad in testing the DOS
version in crt0.  It's a straightforward code, and it's short.