From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Feb  4 10:51:13 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA04516
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA04493;
          Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:51:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.3/8.6.9) id FAA32304; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 05:47:58 +1100
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 05:47:58 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199702041847.FAA32304@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: jlemon@americantv.com, tri@iki.fi
Subject: Re: vm86 in current?
Cc: current@freebsd.org, emulation@freebsd.org, phk@critter.dk.tfs.com
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>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.

Bruce