>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ramon van Handel) wrote:
>
>> Yes, I am aware of that. However, the idea was that the
>> interface to the plugins should be consistant... the actual
>> implementation differs quite a bit.
>
>My point was that we'll need *two* interfaces; one to raise
>an IRQ, and one to announce an intercept handler for a software
>interrupt or exception ...
Okay, you're right.
>> A debugger may want to intercept an arbitrary interrupt...
>> GDB cannot do this, but a specialised system-software debugger,
>> which will undoubtedly still be coded, can. I seem to remember
>> that that excellent DOS debugger, SoftICE, had this feature.
>
>OK, I can see that this could be useful. To implement this we'd
>probably need a bitmap of interrupts to be intercepted, and
>check this map in the monitor ...
Yes.
>> Moreover, another idea would be to reimplement an operating
>> system *outside* the VM, and only run the application code
>> inside it. For instance, one could hack up WINE to be a
>> plugin, which catches the windows system call from the VM.
>
>There is no 'windows system call' as such. (NT does have a
>int 2E call, but this is undocumented and Wine doesn't implement
>it; 95 doesn't have any standard system call at all ...).
>
>The only (partially) documented Windows interface (which Wine
>implements) is about comparable to the libc interface in Linux:
>the KERNEL32, USER32, GDI32, ... entry points.
Okay, I do remember you mentioning this before. However, it's
the idea that counts ;)
-- Ramon
