From: invalid AT erehwon DOT invalid (Graaagh the Mighty)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Peculiar behavior of program.
Organization: Low Charisma Anonymous
Message-ID: <3b3c0ae8.261718669@news.primus.ca>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010625154252 DOT 2920H-100000 AT is> <3b37e2d6 DOT 287121289 AT news DOT primus DOT ca> <9h9ich$jhe$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE> <3b3b43a3 DOT 210697691 AT news DOT primus DOT ca> <200106281858 DOT OAA12291 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <3b3be559 DOT 252102802 AT news DOT primus DOT ca> <200106290245 DOT WAA16080 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Lines: 47
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 05:03:08 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.176.153.3
X-Complaints-To: news AT primus DOT ca
X-Trace: news1.tor.primus.ca 993791141 207.176.153.3 (Fri, 29 Jun 2001 01:05:41 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 01:05:41 EDT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 22:45:07 -0400, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> sat on
a tribble, which squeaked:

>But why?  Do we really want to have special cases for *all* the DPMI
>providers there are?  Since they all follow the spec...

Actually, if they did, they wouldn't be distinguishable.

>why not just code to the spec and not worry about it?  Nothing in DJGPP
>really cares which DPMI server you use, as long as they follow the spec.

A serious limitation of debugging capabilities under DPMI was under
discussion. It seemed reasonable to make new versions of CWSDPMI and
DJGPP where the CWSDPMI has extensions to remedy that situation, the
new DJGPP startup code tests for the fancy CWSDPMI in some way by
probing for a quirk that manifests exactly once at launch, and the
fancy CWSDPMI knows whether the manifest the quirk by looking for a
signature in the structure of executables produced by the new DJGPP. A
bit of a hack, but it would allow a programmer to get a bit more
debugging info in some cases of reproducible crashes by rerunning it
in pure DOS, given these hypothetical versions.

>Yes, I know that.  I work in the gcc development group at Red Hat.
>And DJGPP's gcc *is* the "stock gcc" - the same gcc linux uses, but
>for djgpp instead of linux (which is a trivial difference).

I know that; what I meant being that MS-DOS apps running under
emulation in Linux will suck wind compared to the same app compiled
for Linux with a native version of the same compiler.

>However, DJGPP's performance on a well-tuned MS-DOS machine isn't that
>much worse than Linux.

Then add an emulation layer...

>> The only overlap that I can see as likely at all is Quake...
>
>Quake I was built with DJGPP :-)

Yes, that's why I mentioned it above, but unless you *re*build it...


-- 
Bill Gates: "No computer will ever need more than 640K of RAM." -- 1980
"There's nobody getting rich writing software that I know of." -- 1980
"This antitrust thing will blow over." -- 1998
Combine neo, an underscore, and one thousand sixty-one to make my hotmail addy.