From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <9903221650.AA02568@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: DPMI Get Memory Block Size and Base call
To: nate AT cartsys DOT com (Nate Eldredge)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:50:20 -0600 (CST)
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <36F5556A.B4D40692@cartsys.com> from "Nate Eldredge" at Mar 21, 99 12:24:10 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20]
Content-Type: text
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
Precedence: bulk

> Charles: Would you mind adding DPMI call 0x050a (Get Memory Block Size
> and Base) to CWSDPMI?  It would greatly simplify a change I have in mind
> for libdbg (to check the page attributes before touching the child's
> memory).  The call looks extremely simple, and I would write it myself,
> but I don't have the necessary Borland tools to build it.

I think it would be better if the application kept track of the blocks
allocated and the size.  Why?

1) It puts the code in the one application that needs it, instead of all
   apps carrying around the code.
2) Since DPMI 1.0 is dead on arrival, I think it's a good idea to minimize
   calls to the API.
3) CWSDPMI is essentially in maintenence mode.  In the last year I've gotten
   one patch request to support PC98 systems in raw mode, and some continued
   grief over my promise to eventually build it into the stub.  Given my
   time constraints and lack of screams to fix things - my policy is to leave
   it alone.

If you code it, I will compile it for you to test when I get the chance.  If
I every make another official release, and that's a big if..., I would then
put the code in the new release if my group of expert users generally agrees
it's a good idea.