Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1997/09/01/05:54:44
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Vik Heyndrickx wrote:
> Does a program that calls `stat', or `fstat', or `getmntent'
> considered ``normal''? If so, they all access internal DOS data
> structures which are outside the above-mentioned areas. They could be
> also either below or above the 640K mark, depending on how did the
> host machine load DOS.
Yes, DJ already pointed out to me that we can't really live without
_dos_ds. Beside the things I called, also structures offered by TSR and
the BIOS should be accessible, and since those usually don't reside in
fixed places we need one general DOS selector.
> No matter how many safe functions would you ad to the library, people
> will always want The Fastest Way Ever. I don't see anything wrong in
> using farptr functions for accessing any address in the first MB.
I won't take people's toys, but offering a safe alternative. E.g.
limiting access to the TB through a selector could prevent a lot harm.
> What happened to the video RAM access speed survey you were
> conducting, btw? I don't think I saw the results. Did I miss
> something?
Well, no, I didn't publish the results as such. Because I didn't get any
report from someone who had a 32-bit video access problem and I bought
in the meantime a new computer I "forgot" all about it.
Results:
- on very slow computers (386SX) or video hardware (slow VGA, old
Hercules, ...), 32 bit goes as fast as 16 bit!
- on fast computers and video hardware, results vary, from factor 1 to
factor 2 speed up.
Since text mode output doesn't really put high requirements on
performance, it wouldn't be any problem at all to change it from 32 to
16 bits.
- Fasted systems are more than 100 times quicker than slowest!
Ofcourse all based on reports I got.
--
+----------------+
| Vik Heyndrickx |
+----------------+
- Raw text -