Xref: news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:1064 From: Charles Sandmann Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Infernal compiler error: CWSDPMI Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 22:36:50 CST Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas Lines: 25 Message-ID: <31201562.sandmann@clio.rice.edu> References: <271E42B1417 AT fs2 DOT mt DOT umist DOT ac DOT uk> Reply-To: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu NNTP-Posting-Host: clio.rice.edu To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp > How common is this `Cooperative Wholesale Society DPMI' (or whatever the > letters mean)? I've never had that trouble with the old djgpp. DPMI is pervasive in protected mode 32-bit environments (you can't get to 32-bit protected mode without it in OS/2, Windows, NT, etc) so you are forced to deal with it, since 100% of new computers get shipped with it as the default environment. If Microsoft had made it just a tiny bit more pervasive and shipped a DPMI provider with EMM386 (like all of the other memory manager do) we wouldn't have to worry about CWSDPMI at all (which is the C.W.Sandmann provided DPMI package). And if DPMI hadn't stopped developing before it even reached a full 1.0 (yes, MS is still shipping 0.9, 5 years later) it would be a decent API. Null pointer protection in V2 is due to a DPMI 1.0 extension built into CWSDPMI - if I had infinite time and infinite $$$ I would code the full 1.0 specification in CWSDPMI and we could have dynamic stack expansion, simulated linear frame buffers, and the whole DJGPP v1.x feature set in V2.x. Noone is forcing you to migrate to DJGPP V2, V1.12 is still out there, with full source, so you can continue to use/upgrade/merge_V2_features as you see fit. If you or none of your programs ever see any operating system enviroment than DOS, don't use hardware interrupts, don't need signals, don't need posix or ansi compatibility, then V1.x is probably a better choice.