Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/01/13/15:55:37
| From: | Harold Roman <harold AT giganet DOT com>
|
| Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp
|
| Subject: | UNchain_protected_mode_interrupt_vector?
|
| Date: | Wed, 13 Jan 1999 15:54:41 -0500
|
| Organization: | GigaNet Inc.
|
| Lines: | 21
|
| Message-ID: | <369D0811.C135ED20@giganet.com>
|
| NNTP-Posting-Host: | pepsi.giganet.com
|
| Mime-Version: | 1.0
|
| X-Mailer: | Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; U; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/780)
|
| To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com
|
| DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
|
| Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com
|
I am having a problem with the calls that hook the interrupt
vectors, the "chain" and "set" calls:
_go32_dpmi_chain_protected_mode_interrupt_vector(intrVector,
&handler)
_go32_dpmi_set_protected_mode_interrupt_vector(intrVector,
&handler)
The documentation for "set" shows sample code that uses
"chain" to hook the interrupt vector then "set" to unhook
the vector.
That seems ok ... well, almost. I believe that the "chain"
call creates a wrapper for the new interrupt handler. And, I
believe that this wrapper is not free'd when the "set" call
is used to unhook the interrpt handler. I believe this is
causing a memory leak that eventually kills my app.
My question: is there a coresponding "unchain" call?
- Raw text -