X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1567354070;
	bh=QLp8P3BJ1PAscGP55NCRt0jEOU3YImHZt5tOhHbd6b4=;
	h=In-Reply-To:From:Date:References:To:Subject:Message-ID;
	b=Oq+NTX5o+1GHKHNpSaa6nFAaLJ6osE75byD/Wt9fVgnGRSZKCD4wcTcK/d+8QmTYl
	 q8tfNgiSIvSV7lh85RaVQxh1XMyTMaeBADN7hHitDLuigCUoUm7BC/hPDq+qkXEXR+
	 It4kkvZoId45SzyDcCosD2x11JRR+rMDVAxkJvLk=
Authentication-Results: mxback13g.mail.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.ru
Subject: cwsdpmi borland compatible? possible! (Re: [PATCH] exec: fix
 inversions in leak detection logic)
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
References: <964e3268-2f75-ee73-ab5a-b01bf1aadb98 AT yandex DOT ru>
 <qjb14m$1kqj$1 AT gioia DOT aioe DOT org>
 <7209026e-1f1b-e590-00a3-4ed1a424cc0d AT yandex DOT ru>
 <qjfkbp$1o2c$1 AT gioia DOT aioe DOT org>
 <bd347f78-b176-6992-291c-2e542241efa1 AT yandex DOT ru>
From: "stsp (stsp2 AT yandex DOT ru) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Message-ID: <d97686df-50ba-5210-519a-abd80f2d190f@yandex.ru>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 19:07:49 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <bd347f78-b176-6992-291c-2e542241efa1@yandex.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-MW
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id x81G8U5G028113
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Hi guys.

As we are at it, a small query below:

20.08.2019 9:05, stsp (stsp2 AT yandex DOT ru) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] пишет:
>> What you're saying is the result is different for other DOSes.
> It does not depend on DOS.
> Its just that there are borland-compatible and
> borland-incompatible DPMI servers, and cwsdpmi
> fails to the second category.
> To find out if the particular DPMI server is borland-compatible,
> you need to query for the "MS-DOS" extension via
> int 2f, AX=168a. If the entry point is not returned,
> you have the borland-incompatible DPMI server and
> my patch does not help in that case.
> _I can't fix everything._
And I've just recalled that in fact I can.
As stated above, cwsdpmi is borland-incompatible
DPMI host. But it turned out I already tried to address
that problem in the past:
https://github.com/stsp/pmdapi
I prototyped this code under more capable DPMI servers,
but when the time came for cwsdpmi, I've found that
it doesn't support function 0xc01 and, more importantly,
0xc00. So I just abandonned the project, even though it
was very close to be functional (passed many tests and
could run some borland tools still with some help from
the host's impl).
I actually didn't know about this djgpp list and the fact
that all devs (Charles, Eli, DJ) are still here and active.

Now the question is: does anyone here think it would
be a good idea to make cwsdpmi borland-compatible?
(and MS-compatible, and whatever else)
If so, we can have a "deal": 0xc00 support from cwsdpmi
devs and borland compatibility from me - I'll just resurrect
and complete that project. Please see it yourself how
many code was already written: its not bare bonnes!
If no one thinks this can be of any use - no problems,
its already dead so no actions are needed in that case. :)

This will also address the Rod Pemberton's complains
that my patches are not testible with cwsdpmi. They
will be if we just implement the borland compatibility for it.