Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:04:30 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: RHIDE debugging woes
In-Reply-To: <m0xBefK-000S1fC@inti.edu.ar>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970921130332.9556A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:

> > AFAIK, there's Windows 3.0, there's Windows 3.1, and there's
> > Windows 3.11.  I have never heard of Windows 3.10.
> :-))), so you are joking no?, the reported version of the OS always have 2 
> decimals in the interrupt call, so IS 3.10 ;-)

No, I'm not joking at all.  Windows 3.1 identifies itself as v3.1 in
its banner.  That is IMHO the official version name, and that is how
people should report it.

The fact that Windows returns 3.10 when you call the appropriate
version-reporting function is IMHO irrelevant to this.  For example,
the version is usually reported (in the typical little-endian order)
as 0x0a03 in the AX register.  Would you accept reports that say "my
Windows version is A03h"?

> > > So seems that some thing is sure: Win32s replaces the disk
> > > access routines. 
> > 
> > Which ones?
> The low level DOS routines. Perhaps to support the 32 bits BIOS disk access.

I don't understand why.  32 bit disk access is supported by Windows
3.1 even without Win32s installed.  Why would Win32s need to change
something in DOS?

Also, what do you mean by ``low level DOS routines''?  Can you
elaborate, or give an example of such a routine?  Thanks.