From:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: DOS fall calls.
Date:	18 Sep 2001 12:21:19 GMT
Organization:	Aachen University of Technology (RWTH)
Lines:	21
Message-ID:	<9o7e7v$h3d$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
References:	<n5sp7.28394$Pm5 DOT 6567590 AT news2-win DOT server DOT ntlworld DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de
X-Trace:	nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE 1000815679 17517 137.226.32.75 (18 Sep 2001 12:21:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT rwth-aachen DOT de
NNTP-Posting-Date:	18 Sep 2001 12:21:19 GMT
Originator:	broeker@
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Brian Smith <graywolf DOT smith AT virgin DOT net> wrote:
> Hi.
> I have written and used a number of assembly langage programs that use 16
> and 32bit graphics. In these I make a direct far call to a DOS address to
> execute video bank switching.

The best idea is to avoid this altogether, by using linear framebuffer
mode.  No bankswitch at all, thus no speed problems.

> Any one how I can make a fall call from a ASM function? Using the DOS int
> call is too slow.

You could, in principle, do a __dpmi_simulate_far_call or whatever the
precise libc function name is. But it'd still weigh in the protected
-> real and back mode switching, unless your VESA BIOS has a protected
mode bankswitch call, too.


-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

- Raw text -