On Mon, Nov 10, Eric Pouech wrote: > half of what you (rightfully) suggest to fix had been broken for very > long in msdos/int21.c (so don't blame me too much... at least not for > that half)
Yes, I know msdos/int21.c contains lots of broken code and I'm pretty sure your patch did not add any new bugs. I just would prefer that instead of moving broken code around, broken code would be removed from msdos/int21.c and fixed code would be added to winedos/int21.c or at least comments would be added to broken code saying that code is broken and it needs to be fixed. This is because Wine DOS emulation was horrible mess before I started working on it and it is still a big mess after all my work and I really don't want to see patches that make the mess worser than it is. > I hope anyway I didn't step on your toes with this patch... Do you have > some work going on in this area ? Well, I have been planning to write a patch that migrates those int21 subfunctions but unfortunately I have not had the time to do it. And as DOS event handling is currently more or less broken, I guess migrating int21 subfunctions has even lower priority than it had before. So, if you want to submit patches that migrate code to winedos, I won't really mind, as long as you try to either fix or comment obviously broken code (Ralf Browns Interrupt List is really helpful) and you try to make as much use as possible of existing winedos code. -- Jukka Heinonen <http://www.iki.fi/jhei/>
