Message-Id:	<199709261425.KAA02593@delorie.com>
From:	Oberhumer Markus <k3040e4 AT c210 DOT edvz DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at>
Subject:	Re: [malcolm AT manawatu DOT gen DOT nz: Fork source code.]
To:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date:	Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:19:06 +0200 (METDST)
Cc:	dj AT delorie DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, malcolm AT manawatu DOT gen DOT nz
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.970921140633.9783B-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Sep 21, 97 02:25:33 pm
Return-Read-To:	markus DOT oberhumer AT jk DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at
Mime-Version:	1.0

>	* Charles once told me that there are many bugs and subtleties
>	  in the way different DPMI hosts implement functions 0900h
>	  and 0901h.  This code uses these heavily and seems to rely
>	  on the fact that no interrupt will arrive when the virtual
>	  interrupts are disabled.  Will this assumtion hold?  What,
>	  if any, are other implications, for the case of this code,
>	  of whatever problems there are in the different
>	  implementations of 0900h out there?

You can easily lock at least Windows 3.1 with some calls to 0900/0901.

I'm always using the following macros in my programs:
#define disable() __asm__ __volatile__("cli \n");
#define enable()  __asm__ __volatile__("sti ; cld \n");

What about making this the default in <dos.h> as well ?

- Raw text -