Date:	Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:27:28 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
cc:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: __dpmi_set_coprocessor_emulation
In-Reply-To:	<199910031142.HAA06622@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.991004102711.23739B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, DJ Delorie wrote:

> Well, you seem to have more information than I do, so go ahead and do
> what your info says if you think it's the right thing.

I don't think we have a good reason to change this before v2.03 is
out.  After that, perhaps.

> I think the idea is that if MP=0, you get a "no fpu" exception even
> if you *do* have an fpu.

Right, and that's what the startup code should do, even when there is
an FPU, if the user sets 387=n.

> Perhaps CWSDPMI masks MP becuase it needs to stay *set* for emulation
> to work properly?

I don't see any reason for this in any piece of documentation I have
seen.  Charles, do you know anything about this?

- Raw text -