From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: far pointers again
Date:	Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:19:12 +0200
Organization:	NetVision Israel
Lines:	16
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.991006161838.13916O-100000@is>
References:	<7tcdq7$7ug AT cs DOT vu DOT nl> <7tcslg$ffj AT cs DOT vu DOT nl> <7td6iu$spa$1 AT solomon DOT cs DOT rose-hulman DOT edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	is.elta.co.il
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	news.netvision.net.il 939219477 17946 199.203.121.2 (6 Oct 1999 14:17:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT netvision DOT net DOT il
NNTP-Posting-Date:	6 Oct 1999 14:17:57 GMT
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
In-Reply-To:	<7td6iu$spa$1@solomon.cs.rose-hulman.edu>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Damian Yerrick wrote:

> I agree. I liked the way Borland did far pointers. It would make
> video access easier and speed porting of legacy real-mode
> code.

That's what nearptr hack is for.  Why do you need another solution for
the same problem?

> Should some fellow suggest this to the GCC group?

Go ahead, if you think it's a good idea.  Since most of the drive
behind the x86 support in GCC is Linux, I don't expect this suggestion
to be too easy to get through, but that doesn't need to prevent you
from making it.

- Raw text -