From: invalid AT erehwon DOT invalid (Graaagh the Mighty) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Sabotage! Organization: Low Charisma Anonymous Message-ID: <3b5bc11d.87603499@news.primus.ca> References: X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 45 Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 06:20:05 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.176.153.163 X-Complaints-To: news AT primus DOT ca X-Trace: news1.tor.primus.ca 995869235 207.176.153.163 (Mon, 23 Jul 2001 02:20:35 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 02:20:35 EDT To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 14:07:00 +0300 (IDT), Eli Zaretskii sat on a tribble, which squeaked: > >This message comes from the stub loader. It means that a call to the >PM entry procedure failed. Every DJGPP program calls the PM entry >procedure during startup to switch to protected mode. The PM entry >procedure's address is returned by the DPMI host in response to a call >to function 1687h of Int 2Fh. You're saying whatever he did made PM *unavailable*? What could possibly cause that? >Did you invoke the compiler in a DOS box that was already open, or did >you open a new box? If the former, it's possible that some >DOS-extended program was already running there, and COMMAND.COM was >its child, and that this DOS-extended program was incompatible with >DPMI. Nope, it was a DOS box generated from a DOS Prompt shortcut, modified to make a full 65536K available to DPMI clients. The call to gcc was a direct child of the prompt, which in turn was not a subshell from anything, unless you count Windows itself. Also, earlier use of gcc from the same DOS box worked. Unless of course, the pest had closed the DOS box and opened another of a different nature, or had run something in it and then invoked a shell. The latter seems unlikely, though. >It can also be that the selectors in that DOS box were all exhausted, >due to the fact that Windows 9X leaks selectors like a sieve. Or >maybe some other resource required for DPMI was exhausted. Surely it doesn't leak when it's *idle*? Someone has to be doing something major (opening and closing windows, say) for a memory leak to occur, and nothing automatic was running that does anything of the sort. Otherwise it really does start to seem like a "watch winding down", which a computer certainly should not be. -- 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.