From: "John S. Fine" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: cwsdpr0.exe 4/15/99 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 14:20:44 -0400 Lines: 28 Message-ID: <37162DFC.456C@erols.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: IgzHIY9gwgHYqaWEiaDyak3Nbh8r/6xLzGRrFMQyjLg= X-Complaints-To: abuse AT rcn DOT com NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Apr 1999 18:22:18 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; U) To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com yjtseng wrote: > > So. May I make a bold conclusion that, in cwsdpmi.exe, the linear address > will always equal the physical address I don't think that is true. I know very little about cwsdpmi, but unless I am seriously mistaken in the little I think I know, I have a counter example. I run with QEMM and without QDPMI. Most, but not all, addresses are mapped physical==linear. When I run a DJGPP program it uses cwsdpmi. I believe it takes control from QEMM using the VPCI interface. Using VCPI it inherits all of QEMM's mappings. My DJGPP programs can see things mapped under QEMM at the same linear address they had under QEMM, even when that doesn't match physical address. I expect there are many more cases in which cwsdpmi has mappings that don't match linear vs physical. Even if most of the mappings do match, I don't think you can count on it. -- http://www.erols.com/johnfine/ http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/8600/