Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 16:00:46 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: smpatel@wam.umd.edu (Sujal Patel) Cc: willows@throck.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More on x86 Emulated Willows Message-ID: <199602072300.QAA06682@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960207104503.197j-100000@xi.dorm.umd.edu> from "Sujal Patel" at Feb 7, 96 10:50:34 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I found out this morning that, a static 'xwin' binary is MUCH more > succesful then the dynamic one. The static one runs charmap, terminal, > clock, and even gets much farther on WinWord.. Anyone have any idea what > could be causing this? > > Current problems are: > > 1- Calc, Excel, and others FPE in fp87.c-- This bug is FreeBSD specific(?) > 2- WinWord complains about SHARE.EXE not being loaded... Any ideas? SHARE.EXE prevents the enforcement of file locks when the locks are enforced. I suspect an error in the mapping of locks which are advisory (BSD) vs. those that are mandatory (DOS). Most likely this is the "attrib" INT 21 call. Typically, an "attrib" on an open file will fail only on the "set" case, and then only if "a deny write" mode is present. It could fail in the read case if internally they were using an "open" that imposed access conflict checking to actually implement the function. If you could get a trace, this would be helpful. I just finished up a lot of work in Windows95's IFS Manager, where the share mode and locking/access conflicts are involved, so this is all very fresh for me. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602072300.QAA06682>