Message-ID:	<390D472E.34491066@mtu-net.ru>
Date:	Mon, 01 May 2000 12:58:22 +0400
From:	"Alexei A. Frounze" <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language:	en,ru
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: 3rd Try: Maybe an asm problem? (Problems linking)
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000501115336 DOT 9191G-100000 AT is>
X-Recipient:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
> 
> > Anyway, I think there is no serious difference for a programmer what
> > kind of INT is used, if OS has correct support for DPMI and its V86
> > monitor also works properly.
> 
> Unfortunately, you cannot rely on DPMI being correctly supported and
> on V86 monitor working properly.  For example, last year we found that
> function 1680h of the interrupt 2Fh, if issued directly (through
> int86) in nested DPMI programs, wedges the DOS box on some versions of
> Windows 9X, while the same function call that goes through __dpmi_int
> works correctly.  (See the end of section 6.1 of the FAQ for more
> about this.)

1680h of 2fh. :)) I used it only once. I think there are a lot of people who
never used it at all.

> That's why I think it is important that programmers understand the
> differences between these two ways of invoking a real-mode service.

Yeah, better not program at all, if we can't relie on our host OSes and go out
with friends instead. :)

bye.
Alexei A. Frounze
-----------------------------------------
Homepage: http://alexfru.chat.ru
Mirror:   http://members.xoom.com/alexfru

- Raw text -