located the bug in freedos kernel. this the first driver *at all* that
uses dos_alloc (int 21 ah=48)
INTERLNK.EXE does (pseudocode)
is running at
if (dos_version < 5) // try load high to UMB
seg = dos_alloc(driversize); // driversize ~= 2f0 para
// move driver up to UMB
// relocate interrupt vectors, driver list, ...
unfortunately dos_alloc(driversize) succeeds, but returns 425 -
the very segment the driver is currently running at. OUCH!
MCB looks like
2D3:0 'M' -->
the space for the driver is not allocated while the driver is loaded
INTERLNK does tries to get some UMB memory, but has not called
INT21 AH=58. why would MSDOS return MCB memory?
while this is a real bug, I'm not certain this should be fixed as
rethinking the driver load and memory allocation at init time is far
am 5. Februar 2016 um 18:05 schrieben Sie:
> Have tried with latest* kernel, there is a fixed bug in int 25/26 that may effect it.
> You may want to try RIFS as well, it has source, but I don't
> recall if it used serial, parallel, or either but did work with
> FreeDOS kernel as well as it did with PCDOS.
> * I'm releasing updated version this weekend if time permits after I commit changes from git to svn.
> On Feb 5, 2016 11:04 AM, "Tom Ehlert" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I used to use INTERxxx a lot many years ago using the special
>> parallel cables designed for that purpose (I think I still have a
>> couple of those cables in my "spare cable box"). Parallel is MUCH
>> faster than serial (null modem) cables.
> I also used it *A LOT*. in times when there were no network cards a
> commodity. (the times they are a changing ...)
>> I believe Eric is correct when he says INTERxxx is sector-based
>> rather than file-based as Tom states. I do know that the client
>> (INTERLNK) must be capable of "understanding" the file system of the
>> server (INTERSVR). For example, if the client is MS-DOS 6.2 (which
>> doesn't understand FAT32) and the server is MS-DOS 7.x (which does
>> understand FAT32) and you're trying to access a FAT32 disk on the
>> server, it doesn't work. I know this for sure because I've tried
>> it. If INTERxxx was file-based, it wouldn't matter which version of
>> FAT was on either computer (and could even work on non-FAT drives
>> the server had mounted, like CD's and network drives).
> you are right, my memory was plain wrong on this.
> and - while debugging the crashing problem - I also saw that it
> installs itself as handler for INT 25/26 'DOS DISK READ/WRITE'
> Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
> APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
> Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
> Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140 > _______________________________________________
> Freedos-user mailing list
> [hidden email] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user >
Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Kind regards