Date:	Tue, 21 May 2002 08:20:28 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
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:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1020521081820.4513C-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

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.

- Raw text -