Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/01/23/11:52:01
> > ( Anyway, why do we protect the memory if there is
> > only one process ? ;).
>
> Who says so? What about all the TSRs and device drivers that are sitting
> in memory and doing their things behind the scenes? or Emacs from which I
> just spawned a compiler to run? or DOS itself? or a memory-mapped storage
> device? Do we want their memory to be overwritten by a program who went
> amok?
Yes, that's true. Since mostly I program in REAL multitask OS ( WinNT ;(
and Linux :) the word multitask/multithread has different meaning for
me, not programs hooked to the interrrupts. That's why I didn't count on
the TSRs.
>
> > My question is that, is it possible to make a DOS
> > extender ( or modify some existing ), to support
> > multithreading or I missed something ?
>
> The FAQ points you to such a package in section 22.2. Another package
> (LWP) was announced today on this news group.
I checked the LWP. What is a nice solution in a world like DOS.
Since I am not a DOS expert, I don't know that under DOS , isn't it
possible to make a run-time system, say extender, that support
multiple threads ( with the same data segment ) and multiple
processes ( with different data segment ) ?
( The multi-thread/-process means for me also to support priorities. ).
If not possible, which limitation of DOS or whatever caused it ?
David.
- Raw text -