From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10108131910.AA16614@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Selector Exhaustion
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:10:08 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au (Andrew Cottrell), djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
        pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
In-Reply-To: <5832-Mon13Aug2001212853+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Aug 13, 2001 09:28:53 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

> > The original code leaked DPMI selector like a sive on Win2K when building
> > LIBC on Win 2K, it was a night mare to have to restart every minute or two.
> 
> By ``original code'' I meant the patch posted by Charles.

Actually no - he means the V2.03 or CVS code.  My code fixes the problem
on Win2K and XP, but it makes some assumptions which haven't been validated
on other platforms and might be dangerous.  I actually think my code would
probably work fine everywhere, but Andris has a fix which appears safe
instead of making assumptions - but doesn't work at all on Win 2000.

> > The issue I had was that Charles patch was for Win 2K and Andris patch was
> > for Win 98. I wanted to have the same source and executables for both Win 98
> > and 2K.  Between the patch from Charles that was for Win 2K issues and
> > Andris and your comments about this last week I thought it best to only
> > enable the code in Charles's patch on my Win 2K box and don't enable the
> > function calls when running on my Win 98 box. I thought it was better safe
> > than sorry.
> 
> If there's a conflict between different patches, I suggest to discuss
> that and arrive at a unified solution.  Rushing into rebuilding
> packages before we have an agreed solutioin that should be good for
> all platforms might be a waste of resources.

We're working on it, but you can't even do builds without some fix on 
Win2K.  

We don't need anything on CWSDPMI.
We only need the CWS patch code on NT/Win2K/XP.
For other platforms we want to probably check access rights, but I'd
prefer to avoid making 16,000 DPMI calls to scan all the selectors.

So we have working prototypes, but no final code.