9 and C (12) are labeled Yes in the manual but they are "No" in the
plex86 source code. Perhaps I have an older version of the source code?
Does the source code now allow 9 and 12?
Kevin Lawton wrote:
>
> Willow Schlanger wrote:
> >
> > http://developer.intel.com/design/intarch/techinfo/pentium/specupdt/doc_ch.h
> > appears to be Not Found.
> >
> > Here's from 24547103.pdf:
> >
> > Type Name Valid?
> > 0 Reserved No
> > 1 Available 16-bit TSS Yes
> > 2 LDTYes
> > 3 Busy 16-bit TSS Yes
> > 4 16-bit call gate Yes
> > 5 16-bit/32-bit task gate Yes
> > 6 16-bit interrupt gate No ---
> > 7 16-bit trap gate No ---
> > 8 Reserved No
> > 9 Available 32-bit TSS Yes <----
> > A Reserved No
> > B Busy 32-bit TSS Yes
> > C 32-bit call gate Yes <----
> > D Reserved No ----
> > E 32-bit interrupt gate No ----
> > F 32-bit trap gate No ----
>
> All of these which you have labeled 'Yes' are in the switch
> statement which can result in ZF = 1 if the protection checks
> pass.
>
> I created a simple LAR test. Ring3, cycling through system
> segment types of 0..15. Tried on 486/P/PII/PIII. All reported
> exactly as in the manual, which is exactly as in the plex86
> code.
>
> So I still have no idea what you are talking about, when you
> say you were 'partially' right. The behaviour is supposed
> to be as it is in the stock CVS code.
>
> Is there a flaw in the protection checks? What is it exactly
> that you changed that makes Windows work better?
>
> -Kevin
>
> --
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Kevin Lawton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> MandrakeSoft, Inc. Plex86 developer
> http://www.linux-mandrake.com/ http://www.plex86.org/
