Date:	Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:03:34 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	Neil Townsend <neil AT robots DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: GCC / RHIDE and CWSDMPI/CWSDPR0/Stubbing
In-Reply-To:	<1998Sep1.151304.27097@catorobots.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980902110316.517S-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Neil Townsend wrote:

> After much thought and newsgroup reading, it strikes me that I would be
> better off using CWSDPMR0 (or some other) rather than CWSDPMI as I wish only
> to use physical memory.

Could you please explain why is this a good idea?  If CWSDPR0 suits
you, it means that your programs don't use more memory than is
physically installed on your machine, right?  (Otherwise, they'd abort
with ``Virtual memory exhausted'' message.)  If so, using CWSDPMI
won't make your programs page either.  So why would you need to force
them use CWSDPR0?

Please note that CWSDPR0 is different from CWSDPMI in areas other than
VM support.  For starters, it runs your program at Ring 0; it also
doesn't swap stacks on hardware interrupts.  It is quite possible that
some programs will misbehave with it if they were not tested under
CWSDPR0 (I'd guess most of them weren't).

> So far, so good. I'm afraid I can';t find documented how one configures
> GCC/LD/RHIDE to stubify the executable to use a different DPMI server
> automatically.

You will need to download djlsr201.zip, edit stubify.c from there so
that CWSDPR0 is the default DPMI server, and recompile stubify.

But I think using CWSDPR0 as the default server is a bad idea.

- Raw text -