Re: 64-bit detection

From	"Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm>
Newsgroups	alt.os.development
Subject	Re: 64-bit detection
Date	2015-07-13 23:10 -0400
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<op.x1qtrxhpyfako5@localhost> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <mnoefh$r7g$1@dont-email.me> <op.x1m0bkpvyfako5@localhost> <mnua5d$d7n$1@dont-email.me> <op.x1o8dle4yfako5@localhost> <3cca78a8-86a8-4a5b-a949-b9b59529d23d@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 05:07:44 -0400, Alexei A. Frounze  
<alexfrunews@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> I recall, however, that support for nested DPMI programs (or for
> starting any programs from a DPMI program?)[...]
> I'd really like system()/exec*()/spawn*()/whatever to work under
> DPMI, if it's supported.

I'm not sure what you mean ...

AFAIK, system() will start any program from a DJGPP DPMI program
including other DJGPP DPMI programs both stubbed (16-bit CRT/DPMI)
and unstubbed (raw COFF), other non-DJGPP DPMI programs such as
 from OpenWatcom or PMODEDJ for DJGPP etc, regular 16-bit DOS apps,
or internal DOS commands.

You may need to call _check_v2_prog() to correctly set or clear the
flag __system_call_cmdproc in __system_flags prior to calling system().

CWSDPMI is a re-entrant/nestable DPMI host.   Only a single instance
of CWSDPMI will be started.  Nesting won't cause additional instances
of CWSDPMI to be loaded into memory, unlike many other DPMI hosts.
Other DPMI hosts will start another instance of the host, i.e.,
consuming additional memory for each DPMI instance and nesting.

Rod Pemberton

-- 
Tolerance and socialism attracts intolerance and terrorism.  See:
France, United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, ...
UK: Strong encryption, non-issue. GR: Eurozone currency, priority.

Thread

64-bit detection "Benjamin David Lunt" <zfysz@fysnet.net> - 2015-07-09 16:47 -0700
  Re: 64-bit detection "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-07-09 23:41 -0400
    Re: 64-bit detection "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-10 08:30 +0100
      Re: 64-bit detection "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-07-10 05:17 -0400
        Re: 64-bit detection "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-10 13:41 +0100
          Re: 64-bit detection "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 19:04 +0100
            Re: 64-bit detection "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-07-13 02:30 -0400
              Re: 64-bit detection "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 02:07 -0700
                Re: 64-bit detection "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-07-13 23:10 -0400
                Re: 64-bit detection "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 01:23 -0700
              Re: 64-bit detection "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 12:34 +0100
                Re: 64-bit detection "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-07-13 22:50 -0400
                Re: 64-bit detection "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 08:37 +0100
                Re: 64-bit detection "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 01:41 -0700
                Re: 64-bit detection "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 10:04 +0100
      Re: 64-bit detection "Benjamin David Lunt" <zfysz@fysnet.net> - 2015-07-10 08:44 -0700
      Re: 64-bit detection "Benjamin David Lunt" <zfysz@fysnet.net> - 2015-07-10 10:52 -0700
    Re: 64-bit detection "Benjamin David Lunt" <zfysz@fysnet.net> - 2015-07-10 08:38 -0700
      Re: 64-bit detection "Benjamin David Lunt" <zfysz@fysnet.net> - 2015-07-10 10:58 -0700
  Re: 64-bit detection CN <qmbmnp3799@pacbell.net> - 2015-07-09 23:00 -0700
    Re: 64-bit detection "Benjamin David Lunt" <zfysz@fysnet.net> - 2015-07-10 08:40 -0700
      Re: 64-bit detection "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-10 21:29 +0100

csiph-web