Date:	Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:38:58 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	Scott Fleischman <safleisc AT students DOT wisc DOT edu>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: __djgpp_base_address
In-Reply-To:	<199703041954.NAA143876@audumla.students.wisc.edu>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.970305103754.14799E-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Scott Fleischman wrote:

> Thank you for your reply but I diagree with never using __djgpp_base_address,
> and in this case it is the right thing to use.

Well, in your case, I fail to understand what on earth are you trying
to achieve, so I can't judge whether you indeed need
`__djgpp_base_address'.  If you need to lock the memory of the entire
program, then that's NOT how it should be done.  The correct way is
just to set the `_CRT0_FLAG_LOCK_MEMORY' bit in the
`_crt0_startup_flags' variable, as the FAQ explains (section 18.9).
The way you did it, you only lock static data and code, but not the
memory allocated by the calls to `malloc' and friends, and neither the 
stack.

`__djgpp_conventional_base' and the nearptr feature are for fast
access to memory-mapped devices and absolute addresses, they are not
the proper tools for locking memory, AFAIK.

> If I use __djgpp_conventional_base it doesn't work.

The fact that it doesn't work isn't in itself a proof that it isn't
the right thing to do; the rest of your code might be the reason for
that.

- Raw text -