From: ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se (Martin Str|mberg)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Does Windows 98 lose DMPI descriptors?
Date: 20 Feb 1999 13:05:21 GMT
Organization: University of Lulea, Sweden
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <7ambuh$587$2@news.luth.se>
References: <Pine DOT A41 DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 9902190949200 DOT 50776-100000 AT ieva01 DOT lanet DOT lv> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 990220023542 DOT 4650E-100000 AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: queeg.ludd.luth.se
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Daniel Barker (sokal AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk) wrote:
: Thank you very much for posting this test. I compiled it (after making the
: small change of moving the declaration of i, err and sel to the start of
: the block, just before the call to spawnl) using gcc 2.81 and ran it under
: Windows 98 4.10.1998. As I understand it (which could be poorly), no error
: was encountered:

[Klippa, klapp, kluppit some lines.]

: my_cs: 03D7    my_ds: 03DF   dos_ds: 03EF
: my_cs: 03F7    my_ds: 03FF   dos_ds: 040F
: my_cs: 0417    my_ds: 041F   dos_ds: 042F
: my_cs: 0437    my_ds: 043F   dos_ds: 044F
: my_cs: 0457    my_ds: 045F   dos_ds: 046F

You didn't run it long enough. You do see that the selectors are 
increasing, don't you? What happens when they reach 0x0fff?


New Model Army, New Model Army,

							MartinS