>>> >> Do you mean "flags, _saved on the stack above given code_"? >>> >> And, if so, then why flags are damaged, but return value, which was lies >>> >> on place of flags (relative SP) are not damaged, if you comment out >>> >> "pushf"? >>>that's all I know. this ugly patch solves the issue.
> But how you found this?! by trying these 2 versions. one works, the other doesn't > And what you found? Do you found (with help of > debugger?), that "popf" restores not the same value, as "pushf"? And do you > try to disasm BIOS INT15 entry to check, what precisely "damages" flags? how would this help ? this is a definitiv BIOS bug. Scince I found a way to live with it without major disadvantages, case closed. > More details, please! for your interest, or for what other reason ? > Unless found precise reason, there are no assurance, that your patch > fixes (not masks) anything it masks *this* bug. there is no general way to fix BIOS bugs. > And? Why return address isn't damaged? Let me ask again: ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
