Date:	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 09:16:24 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Nimrod Abing <n_abing AT hotmail DOT com>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Any other PMODE/DJ users out there???
In-Reply-To:	<20000703032934.75812.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000703091601.20850F-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Nimrod Abing wrote:

> The program is a free PKUNZIP
> replacement that I am developing. It uses ZLIB (which to my knowledge
> uses plenty of memory) and it is written in C++. The reason I bound the
> program to PMODSTUB is because I want plain DOS users to be able to run
> my program (yep plenty of them around here).

Beware: binding programs with PMODE/DJ is known to have bad effects
when that program is invoked from another DJGPP program which uses
CWSDPMI.  I found that out when I tested unzip32.exe (available from
DJGPP FTP sites), which is also bound to PMODE/DJ, for the same
reasons you did.  When I invoked it from `redir', it frequently
crashed/rebooted/hung my machine.  I'm guessing that there's some bug
in PMODE that triggers a disaster in CWSDPMI.

Note that plain DOS users will be able to run your program even
without PMODE, provided that you supply CWSDPMI with it, and package
them both into a self-extracting executable.  While this is not an
ideal solution, CWSDPMI is tested much more than PMODE, and so is more
reliable.  In addition, a memory-starved machine might run PMODE out
of physical RAM.

- Raw text -