Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
From:	rd5718 AT irix DOT bris DOT ac DOT uk (Rich Dawe)
Subject:	Re: Protected mode ints & the FAQ (for Eli Z)
X-Nntp-Posting-Host:	irix.bris.ac.uk
Message-ID:	<F3Dyvt.M4D@fsa.bris.ac.uk>
Lines:	20
Sender:	usenet AT fsa DOT bris DOT ac DOT uk (Usenet)
Organization:	University of Bristol, England
X-Newsreader:	TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
References:	<003701be1d4d$df0533e0$c5223182 AT marst96 DOT m DOT resnet DOT pitt DOT edu>
Date:	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 11:07:05 GMT
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

mark reed (marst96+@pitt.edu) wrote:
: Doesnt it say that number 3 is to restore the orignal handler and that you
: must use what you got from number 1 (not 2)? You may have misread it, or its
: a typo or error. You are right the first 2 steps are what you need. The
: third step would be restoring the original handler when you are done, but
: use the info you got from step 1.

	No, step 2 is the part where a wrapper function is created for
your interrupt handler function. If you don't want to chain to the
interrupt, then you have to call a different function to
_go32_dpmi_chain_protected_mode_interrupt() (can't remember the name now)
and then you *do* have to call _go32_dpmi_set_protected_mode_interrupt().
My point was that _g_d_c_p_m_i() calls _g_d_set_p_m_i() for you, which
disagrees with the FAQ.

-- 
==============================================================================
         Rich Dawe - 4th-year MSci Physicist @ Bristol University, UK
           richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com, http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/
==============================================================================

- Raw text -