Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/07/22/10:00:31
Boon van der RJ wrote:
>
> JP Morris (jmorris AT calderauk DOT com) wrote:
> > It's difficult to recompile the thing in pure DOS, you'll need a
> > very good DPMI server. If you work in a win95 DOS box, that should
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > be ok.
> Isn't this a contradiction;-? Or do you mean a DPMI server that
> doesn't care to much about de-referencing NULL-pointers? (which IMHO
> isn't a _good_ DPMI server)
>
No, that's not the reason.
You must have a resident DPMI server that supports both 16 and 32 bit
protected mode applications (CWSDPMI doesn't need to) without any bias
towards certain applications (Borland RTM/32RTM does this).
The Win95 DPMI system does this, but the windows 3.1 DPMI server will
not function correctly.
If you don't have a DPMI server resident, then the process of compiling
MIDAS will start with GNU make. This will start CWSDPMI.
Make will then shell out to 16-bit DPMI tools which will simply abort,
and if it survives that, it will run O2Cpack which will crash under
CWSDPMI, plain and simple. I don't know why yet.
Finally it will return to make, and if the replacement DPMI server
you're using is semi-working (e.g. Borland 32RTM) it may actually
corrupt the system after O2Cpack is finished and freeze up on returning
to make.
You could I suppose do the compilation in stages, rebooting after each
module has finished compiling...
> If you have reasons why win95-dos-box is better than CWSDPMI, I would
> be highly interested. (or what are the problems compiling midas?)
See above, these are the reasons.
QEMM might work, I was only able to compile MIDAS because I was alpha
testing the latest version of the DRDOS DPMI server in emm386.
(You must also use APPEND and PATH to make O2C work in other
directories, but that's not a DPMI issue)
>
> Greetings,
> Robert.
>
> PS. this is not intended as a flame, or a personal attack, but I would
> really like to know why win95 is better. Hmmm, while thinking
> about it, I use win95, even while I think it's worse than DOS in
> most respects. (can't we just switch back to the C64 again ;-).
Yeah, well I didn't try it with win95, because I don't have it.
But it seemed the best solution for other people who aren't
alpha-testing DPMI servers ;-)
> --
> rjvdboon AT cs DOT vu DOT nl | "En dat is niet waar!" sprak (ex?) Staatsecre-
> www.cs.vu.nl/~rjvdboon | taris Netelenbos (onderwijs) fel.
- Raw text -