From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Feb  7 07:50:50 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA08195
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 07:50:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xi.dorm.umd.edu (xi.dorm.umd.edu [129.2.152.45])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA08180
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 07:50:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xi.dorm.umd.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xi.dorm.umd.edu (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA07001; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:50:34 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:50:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Sujal Patel <smpatel@wam.umd.edu>
X-Sender: smpatel@xi.dorm.umd.edu
To: willows@throck.com, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: More on x86 Emulated Willows
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960207104503.197j-100000@xi.dorm.umd.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk


I found out this morning that, a static 'xwin' binary is MUCH more 
succesful then the dynamic one.  The static one runs charmap, terminal, 
clock, and even gets much farther on WinWord..  Anyone have any idea what 
could be causing this?

Current problems are:

1- Calc, Excel, and others FPE in fp87.c--  This bug is FreeBSD specific(?)
2- WinWord complains about SHARE.EXE not being loaded... Any ideas?


Sujal