Den 14/11/2016 11:59, skrev One Thousand Gnomes:
Is anyone actually still using DOSemu these days or are people all
using DOSbox ?
Alan
One thing lacking from DOSbox is TCP/IP networking.
--
Hilsen Harald
> I took a closer look at the dosemu code. It appears that it does not
That doesn't tell you want DOS itself will try and do...
> purposely utilize SGDT to obtain the descriptor table while in vm86. It
> does use SGDT (in protected mode) to emulate certain functionality such
> as the Virtual xxx
On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 23:51 +0300, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> 11.11.2016 07:14, Ricardo Neri пишет:
> >> 10.11.2016 09:46, Ricardo Neri пишет:
> >>> I took a closer look at the dosemu code. It appears that it does not
> >>> purposely utilize SGDT to obtain the descriptor table while in vm86. It
> >>> do
11.11.2016 07:14, Ricardo Neri пишет:
10.11.2016 09:46, Ricardo Neri пишет:
I took a closer look at the dosemu code. It appears that it does not
purposely utilize SGDT to obtain the descriptor table while in vm86. It
does use SGDT (in protected mode) to emulate certain functionality such
as the
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 11:52 +0300, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I don't know the context of that discussion, so I'll only
> comment on the dosemu part.
I'm sorry! I will cc you and the linux-msdos list in my v2.
>
> 10.11.2016 09:46, Ricardo Neri пишет:
> > I took a closer look at the dosemu co
Hi!
I don't know the context of that discussion, so I'll only
comment on the dosemu part.
10.11.2016 09:46, Ricardo Neri пишет:
I took a closer look at the dosemu code. It appears that it does not
purposely utilize SGDT to obtain the descriptor table while in vm86. It
does use SGDT (in protecte
On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 03:05 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Ricardo Neri
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 07:34 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> > Would it not be better to emulate these instructions for them? What
> >> way
> >> > we can verify they're not malic
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Ricardo Neri
wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 07:34 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > Would it not be better to emulate these instructions for them? What
>> way
>> > we can verify they're not malicious.
>>
>> Forget malice -- if they are really needed for some silly
On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 07:34 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Would it not be better to emulate these instructions for them? What
> way
> > we can verify they're not malicious.
>
> Forget malice -- if they are really needed for some silly vm86-using
> program, let's trap them and emulate them so t
On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 17:52 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:12:09PM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > >> There is a caveat, however. Certain applications running in vi
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:12:09PM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> >> There is a caveat, however. Certain applications running in virtual-8086
> >> mode, such as DOSEMU[1] and Wine[2], want to utili
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:12:09PM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
>> There is a caveat, however. Certain applications running in virtual-8086
>> mode, such as DOSEMU[1] and Wine[2], want to utilize the SGDT, SIDT and
>> SLDT instructions for legi
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:12:09PM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> There is a caveat, however. Certain applications running in virtual-8086
> mode, such as DOSEMU[1] and Wine[2], want to utilize the SGDT, SIDT and
> SLDT instructions for legitimate reasons. In order to keep such
> applications working
13 matches
Mail list logo
