From owner-freebsd-emulation Tue Feb 4 11:00:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA05179 for emulation-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:00:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from sumatra.americantv.com (sumatra.americantv.com [199.184.181.250]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA05170; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:00:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from right.PCS (right.pcs. [148.105.10.31]) by sumatra.americantv.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA27930; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:15:11 -0600 (CST) Received: (jlemon@localhost) by right.PCS (8.6.13/8.6.4) id SAA04066; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:58:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:58:43 -0600 From: jlemon@americantv.com (Jonathan Lemon) To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: tri@iki.fi, current@freebsd.org, emulation@freebsd.org, phk@critter.dk.tfs.com Subject: Re: vm86 in current? References: <199702041847.FAA32304@godzilla.zeta.org.au> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.56e Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <199702041847.FAA32304@godzilla.zeta.org.au>; from Bruce Evans on Feb 5, 1997 05:47:58 +1100 Sender: owner-emulation@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Bruce Evans writes: > >BTW, are there any objections if I grow the trapframe/intrframe/clockframe > >structures by 4 more words? It would only affect things that do sizeof(), > >and perhaps the kernel debugger. Otherwise, a new vm86frame structure will > >be needed, with a little bit of typecasting back and forth. > > It would be bogus because the standard trapframe doesn't actually have > the extra words. However, perhaps you can fudge the extra words by > setting tss_esp0 16 lower. This is what I've already done. I just wanted to see if I could get rid of the (struct trapframe_vm86) and use the reg[tXXXX] constructs instead. Besides, SS and ESP are not actually present for traps/interrupts from the kernel, either. -- Jonathan