Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 08:20:28 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, lauras AT softhome DOT net Subject: Re: emacs under w2k In-Reply-To: <10205210514.AA14985@clio.rice.edu> Message-ID: 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 Tue, 21 May 2002 sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu wrote: > > How about simply blocking the interrupt in the PIC? It might not work > > due to virtualization of the PIC, but it's so simple that I think it's > > worth trying. > > I'd prefer to avoid adding another unknown into the mix at this point. > I'll probably just hack dpmiexcp to see if that fixes it. If so, then > the problem is confirmed. Sure, I was talking about the long term solution, not the most efficient means to find the culprit. > > So if the PIC method works, it might be a better solution > > I understand why this might be good, but I'm worried about what it might > break on other platforms. I don't think it will do any harm on other platforms. > (and if it would even work under W2K & XP ...) That's the real concern, IMHO.