CWSDPMI.DOC implies:
- "built in extender is not supported" => NO
- "This allows single executable image distributions.
You can use the EXE2COFF program and
COPY /B CWSDSTUB.EXE+yourimage yourimage.exe
to create a standalone executable image." => YES
??? YES or NO ???
Or do I understand "built in extender" wrongly ?
I tried it - seems to work.
I tested with BZIP2 and one example I
compiled myself.
Default is obviously NO - all .EXE files from
www.delorie.com and most other "ports" are not
standalone.
Is it (creating a standalone version)
supposed to work for all programms ?
In the past I tested FreePascal - it is also
based on CWSDPMI, but standalone EXE's did
not work except for "HELLO.EXE". I did not get
much valuable help in FreePascal forum - the
DOS target is almost abandonated. Should it
(standalone failure) be considered as a BUG
of FreePascal ?
If it seems to work, then it seems to work ;-)
Also, PMODE can be used as a built-in extender. This is what the ftp
site's unzip32.exe uses.
> Default is obviously NO - all .EXE files from
> www.delorie.com and most other "ports" are not
> standalone.
Right. A 2k stub is far more efficient than a huge built-in extender.
I know. Is its functionality as good as the of CWSDPMI ?
PMODE/W is considered to have some lacks/bugs - is
PMODE/DJ better ?
"A 2k stub is far more efficient than a huge built-in extender."
"huge" extender CWSDPMI: 20 KB
32-bit EXE file: * 50 KB HELLO.EXE
* some 100 KB average prog
* >1MB more complicated prog
DOS/4GW: 250 KB !!!
Consider how many executables there are in a DJGPP distribution.