From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <9911051442.AA20604@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: CWSDPMI - CWSPARAM
To: peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi (Esa A E Peuha)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 08:42:44 -0600 (CST)
Cc: djgpp AT Delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <86pr9i52wn2.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi> from "Esa A E Peuha" at Nov 5, 99 10:03:13 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20]
Content-Type: text
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> But why doesn't CWSDPMI check to see if another DPMI host is already present?

1) It added more code that did not seem to be needed.
2) There were times it was convenient to "overload" CWSDPMI on top of other
   DPMI providers (QDPMI was a very frequent example).  This allowed rapid
   benchmarking, performance and behavior comparisons.
3) It was a good test to be able to see if nested CWSDPMIs would behave
   reasonably well - PIC handling and memory management, etc.
   
In summary, there were several good reasons why this check shouldn't be
there, and no strong reason why it should be coded.