Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 09:16:24 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Nimrod Abing cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Any other PMODE/DJ users out there??? In-Reply-To: <20000703032934.75812.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Nimrod Abing wrote: > The program is a free PKUNZIP > replacement that I am developing. It uses ZLIB (which to my knowledge > uses plenty of memory) and it is written in C++. The reason I bound the > program to PMODSTUB is because I want plain DOS users to be able to run > my program (yep plenty of them around here). Beware: binding programs with PMODE/DJ is known to have bad effects when that program is invoked from another DJGPP program which uses CWSDPMI. I found that out when I tested unzip32.exe (available from DJGPP FTP sites), which is also bound to PMODE/DJ, for the same reasons you did. When I invoked it from `redir', it frequently crashed/rebooted/hung my machine. I'm guessing that there's some bug in PMODE that triggers a disaster in CWSDPMI. Note that plain DOS users will be able to run your program even without PMODE, provided that you supply CWSDPMI with it, and package them both into a self-extracting executable. While this is not an ideal solution, CWSDPMI is tested much more than PMODE, and so is more reliable. In addition, a memory-starved machine might run PMODE out of physical RAM.