1. De toute façon, pour les programmes kernel, tu as déjà les solutions de PpHd (HdKeep, RegisterHandler), donc tu dois déjà t'occuper du problème de l'anticrash, l'amélioration de l'anticrash _nostub que je propose ne te concerne pas (en tant que programmeur).
2. Dois-je en conclure que tous tes TSRs (même ceux qui étaient en _nostub) sont kernel maintenant? J'appelle ça une régression, moi...
3. C'est nul, les TSRs en kernel. Pourquoi? Ben, c'est simple:

I. Badly-designed RAM_CALLs - avoid these at all costs!
-------------------------------------------------------

The following RAM_CALLs are really badly designed. They don't quite serve their intended purpose,
so it is very unwise to use them. Don't.

+----------------+---------------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| Name           | Badly designed because                            | Use instead               |
+----------------+---------------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| RegisterVector | Kernel mode is not a good choice for TSRs. If you | _nostub mode              |
|                | use any "function RAM_CALLs" in your kernel-based |                           |
|                | TSRs, they will unavoidably either crash or get   |                           |
|                | forcefully uninstalled (leaking memory) when the  |                           |
|                | kernel gets uninstalled. This also affects the    |                           |
|                | conditional lib RAM_CALLs, so you can't use any   |                           |
|                | libraries. So why are you using kernel mode in    |                           |
|                | the first place?                                  |                           |
+----------------+---------------------------------------------------+---------------------------+

Cf. http://members.chello.at/gerhard.kofler/kevin/ti89prog/ramcalls.txt pour le document complet.