From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Feb 28 16:41:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA00398 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:41:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from obiwan.aceonline.com.au (obiwan.aceonline.com.au [203.103.90.67]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA00391 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:41:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (adrian@localhost) by obiwan.aceonline.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA01928; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 14:44:29 +0800 (WST) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 14:44:28 +0800 (WST) From: Adrian Chadd To: Tim Oneil cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Java binary support in FreeBSD ... In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970228163329.00ac4480@visigenic.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk This is LOOKING for the binary. Once you know you have a .EXE, you stick it into the dos emulator and let IT do the rest. :) Adrian. On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Tim Oneil wrote: > At 01:42 PM 3/1/97 +0800, you wrote: > >Extending it to cover DOS binaries, etc, wouldn't be hard (for dos .EXE > >Dont' you look for 'MZ' at the beginning of the file? Com files will be > >different, since they are just an image of a segment of code to throw in > >memory, with no real discernable headers. > > Its more than looking for the executable module signature of DOS binaries, > isn't it? I mean, DOS binaries have some pretty funky and backward memory > management requirements. You've got to create a virtual chunk of so-called > "real memory" for it, becuase dos will load an address selector/offset, > turn around and do something else in its brief, broken, sickly way that > only it can manage, then come back to that selector and due to the > ravages (to DOS) of virtual memory management, suddenly find what it > expected to be in that selector gone, and break. I mean, theres just > a whole lot more to emulating DOS than that. > >