Mail Archives: djgpp/1994/02/08/15:12:27
> Would it be a problem to actually have DJGPP say something to this
> effect whenever an 'unsupported interrupt' message comes up, or perhaps
I can't think of anything better to say than "unsupported interrupt",
which it already says.
> a warning when 'int86' is used? Or are there some situations where
> you would still want to use int86 rather than the go32 simulation?
Portability. Borland and MSC don't have _go32_*.
> If not, why support int86 at all? If the issue is "under VCPI, use
> int86, under DPMI, use go32_dpmi_simulate_int", then why not have a function
> which automatically calls the appropriate one?
_go32_dpmi_simulate_int *always* works, regardless of mode. int86()
*always* works for those requests that go32 knows about.
> I really think this sort of thing should be transparent to the user
> who doesn't wish to mind about whether he/she's running under DPMI or VCPI.
Neither function operates differently based on run mode.
> This would aid a lot in portability of code, would it not? No need to
> #define int86 go32_dpmi_simulate_int.
There's never a need to do this, and it wouldn't work anyway. The
parameters are different.
- Raw text -