Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 12:09:03 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Shawn Hargreaves <slh100 AT mailer DOT york DOT ac DOT uk>
Cc: "A.Appleyard" <A DOT APPLEYARD AT fs2 DOT mt DOT umist DOT ac DOT uk>, DJGPP AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: djgpp 2 DPMI
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SGI.3.91.960514090900.26321D-100000@tower.york.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960514120735.59E-100000@is>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Tue, 14 May 1996, Shawn Hargreaves wrote:

> >   What is the progress of making (programs compiled and assembled and 
> > linked by djgpp v2) fully portable and independent of any faults or 
> > absence of whatever DPMI is in the PC that it is run on? One way might 
> 
> I think you are missing the point. It's not possible to avoid the DPMI 
> on the machine. That is the whole reason DPMI was required in the first 

I think what Anthony meant was a possibility to bind a DPMI host with the 
program, so you'd get a stand-alone executable that serves itself, so to 
speak.