From: "Charles Sandmann" <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Pharlap 286
Date: Wed,  1 Aug 2001 23:49:38
Organization: Aspen Technology, Inc.
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <3b689592.sandmann@clio.rice.edu>
References: <996663757 DOT 365465 AT queeg DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dcloan.hou.aspentech.com
X-Trace: selma.aspentech.com 996728033 27622 10.32.115.107 (2 Aug 2001 04:53:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: postmaster AT aspentech DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Aug 2001 04:53:53 GMT
X-NewsEditor: ED-1.5.8
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> : time.  The DPMI 1.0 fix for this would be to have separate IDTs
> : for each client (a whole new can of worms).

And Martin Asked:

> Why would that be a problem?

It's not horribly hard, just a lot more code to write to keep pointers
to them, swap back and forth, dynamically initialize them instead of
working from a static table, more memory to store them, etc.

Anytime you write that much new code that locks the machine totally 
with no hints and no way to debug - you have to have a lot of time and
patience to work through it.