This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS (Announce)
> > Of what? Is Int21.25 crashing your system?
>
> NO:
>
> 1. reentrancy problems
That's the reason I wrote this:
> > It does this by re-storing it's own Int24 handler on any Int21 call by
> > modifying the IVT directly. Because you can't call Int21.25 in MS-DOS
> > safely, this is a legitimate direct IVT modification.
I'm rather refering to your direct IVT modification when installing the TSR.
> 2. implementation bugs
> 3. deliberately bad implementations
Erm, what?
> > It also presents how the IBM Interrupt Sharing Protocol
>
> that IBM is not aware of 
At least Microsoft apparently was, because the MS-DOS kernel uses IISP compatible entries when hooking hardware interrupts to provide the STACKS. (Documented in RBIL as well, and you can boot MS-DOS and look at the entries with DEBUG yourself.)
Use Google wisely!
INTSHARE.TXT (I was wrong on .DOC) which is provided inside INTSHARE.ZIP also states:
In the PS/2 BIOS Interface Technical Reference, IBM has suggested a
protocol for the sharing of system interrupts. Although the protocol
was intended to allow sharing of hardware interrupts, it is equally
usable for software interrupts.
plus
Let me add as a caveat that I do not have and have not examined the
primary source for this information--the PS/2 BIOS reference. Most of
the information in this paper was gleaned from other sources, augmented
by my own experiences in writing TSRs. The most recent writeup as of
this date (August 6, 1991) was in the 7/91 issue of the Microsoft
Systems Journal.
> > uses such crappy fake Win32 function names as you seem to like
>
> I care more about crappy-or-non-crappy and fake-or-non-fake
> implementations than crappy-or-non-crappy and fake-or-non-fake function
> names.
Whatever.
---
l
Complete thread:
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - DOS386, 22.03.2009, 04:56 (Announce)
![Open in board view [Board]](img/board_d.gif)
![Open in mix view [Mix]](img/mix_d.gif)
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - Laaca, 22.03.2009, 09:11
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - ecm, 22.03.2009, 11:36
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - mr, 22.03.2009, 20:05
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - ecm, 22.03.2009, 21:57
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - mr, 25.03.2009, 19:01
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - ecm, 25.03.2009, 19:10
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - mr, 25.03.2009, 20:09
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - ecm, 26.03.2009, 20:43
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - Khusraw, 27.03.2009, 08:29
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - RayeR, 28.03.2009, 03:17
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - Khusraw, 27.03.2009, 08:29
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - ecm, 26.03.2009, 20:43
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - mr, 25.03.2009, 20:09
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - Khusraw, 25.03.2009, 22:08
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - ecm, 25.03.2009, 19:10
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - mr, 25.03.2009, 19:01
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - ecm, 22.03.2009, 21:57
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - rr, 22.03.2009, 21:53
- Impossible to beat? This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - Japheth, 27.03.2009, 09:23
- Impossible to beat? This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - ecm, 27.03.2009, 15:12
- Impossible to beat? This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - Rugxulo, 27.03.2009, 17:12
- This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS - DOS386, 31.03.2009, 04:03
- Yes - Japheth, 31.03.2009, 10:53
- This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS - ecm, 31.03.2009, 23:10
- This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS - DOS386, 05.04.2009, 04:21
- This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS - ecm, 05.04.2009, 09:27
- This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS - DOS386, 07.04.2009, 05:05
- This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS - ecm, 07.04.2009, 13:34
- This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS - DOS386, 07.04.2009, 05:05
- This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS - ecm, 05.04.2009, 09:27
- This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS - DOS386, 05.04.2009, 04:21
- This TSR is impossible to beat !!! 116/48/32/0 Bytes ARF pr - Arjay, 11.12.2009, 12:21
Mix view