>> May you explain here and/or, better, in comments in source, why >> decreasing SP solves issues (and which issues there are)? >>Only >> plausible explanation: >>THIS BIOS damages (sometimes ?) the >> flags; Do you mean "flags, _saved on the stack above given code_"? >> And, if so, then why flags are damaged, but return value, which was lies >> on place of flags (relative SP) are not damaged, if you comment out "pushf"? that's all I know. this ugly patch solves the issue. looks like sometimes someone damages something on the stack, which goes unnoticed most of the time
> Could just be hitting one word on the stack, i.e. [sp] at INT entry. That > would match the behavior on either of the two patches. right > However, there's something suspicious about the fact that this is happening > in INT 15h, and INT 15h is one of the places where EMM386 code where INT > handling was recently changed there's no EMM386 involved in that case (it's not loaded) Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
