From:	"Michael Stewart" <mike AT reggin DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: accessing the graphical video memory
Date:	Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:01:44 +0100
Organization:	(Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd.
Lines:	11
Message-ID:	<7jg8ja$j66$1@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990607131549 DOT 2943F-100000 AT is>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	hgty.capgemini.co.uk
X-Trace:	taliesin.netcom.net.uk 928753066 19654 194.42.240.2 (7 Jun 1999 10:57:46 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT corp DOT netcom DOT net DOT uk
NNTP-Posting-Date:	7 Jun 1999 10:57:46 GMT
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote in message ...
>_dos_ds provides much less protection, since it spans the entire low 1MB
>(plus 64KB in the HMA).  In contrast, the code posted here creates a
>selector which only includes the video memory, so if you accidentally
>overstep the limits, your program will crash, but the system will be
>protected.  As far as I understand, writing safe code was the whole point
>of using this method in the first place.

plus according to the FAQ this method will be slightly quicker.

- Raw text -