From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT tudor21 DOT net>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: I need help about __djgpp_map_physical memory
Date:	Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:32:44 +0100
Organization:	Customer of Planet Online
Lines:	27
Message-ID:	<37F2857C.E2BF39A7@tudor21.net>
References:	<002801bf09e2$470c23a0$a5010a0a AT fsantiago DOT kbtel> <7srdcv$vn4$1 AT news6 DOT svr DOT pol DOT co DOT uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	modem-101.vanadium.dialup.pol.co.uk
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	news6.svr.pol.co.uk 938716450 2837 62.136.11.101 (30 Sep 1999 18:34:10 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	30 Sep 1999 18:34:10 GMT
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT theplanet DOT net
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
X-NNTP-Posting-Host:	iolanthe.tudor21.net
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Michael Stewart wrote:
> From what I understand CWSDPMI implements alot of DPMI v1.0 functions
> whereas Windows 9x & NT only implement DPMI v0.9.
> CWSDPMI is the most complete implementation I know off.

I don't think "a lot" is the right term here - "a few" is more like it:

DPMI 1.0: function 0x0506 -> __dpmi_get_page_attributes()
DPMI 1.0: function 0x0507 -> __dpmi_set_page_attributes(), mprotect()
DPMI 1.0: function 0x0508 -> __dpmi_map_device_in_memory_block()
DPMI 1.0: function 0x0509 ->
                          __dpmi_map_conventional_memory_in_memory_block()
DPMI 1.0: function 0x0E01 -> __dpmi_get_coprocessor_status()

I particularly remember that CWSDPMI doesn't implement any of the shared
memory calls.

BTW I compiled a list of DPMI 1.0 -> DJGPP function name mappings, if
anyone's interested.

Bye,

-- 
Richard Dawe
richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com ICQ 47595498 http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/

- Raw text -