delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Xref: | news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:3609 |
Path: | news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sesqui.net!rice!news!sandmann |
From: | Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: Is DPMI screwing things up? |
Date: | Sun, 03 Dec 1995 20:36:06 CST |
Organization: | Rice University, Houston, Texas |
Lines: | 10 |
References: | <49s07h$fkt AT nuke DOT csu DOT net> |
Reply-To: | sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu |
Nntp-Posting-Host: | clio.rice.edu |
To: | djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu |
Dj-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
> In short, I've got an interrupt hooked. It's hooked twice.. in real mode, > and in protected mode.. With this setup, the only handler to ever get called > is the protected mode one.. real mode interrupts are getting reflected even > though i've provided a handler! Does anyone knoe any way around this? If you are going to hook both (and the only reason to do so is if you expect a substantial number of interrupts in real mode AND you need to minimize the interrupt overhead to a bare minimum) then hook the real mode interrupt after hooking the PM interrupt. Usually the extra complexity isn't worth it, since most PM applications spend most of their time in PM...
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |