Re: Protected mode interrupt problem

[Jukka Heinonen]

On Tue, Oct 07, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Well, the patch is doing a kind of lazy initialisation, since it falls
> back to the global vector if the task one is 0. We could possibly set
> the task vector at that point, but it's not clear to me that it would
> be necessary.

Now that you mention it, the patch indeed does lazy intialization.
I really should try to avoid doing anything that requires thinking
when I'm tired... So, patch looks correct, after all and I don't
think setting task vectors would be useful, either.