delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Thu, 27 May 1999 14:43:49 +0300 (IDT) |
From: | Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> |
X-Sender: | eliz AT is |
To: | Oscar Almer <firstcheesemaster AT netscape DOT net> |
cc: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
Subject: | Re: [Re: BIOS problem] |
In-Reply-To: | <19990527080410.29626.qmail@ww183.netaddress.usa.net> |
Message-ID: | <Pine.SUN.3.91.990527144133.26821B-100000@is> |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
On 27 May 1999, Oscar Almer wrote: > I'll make this clear: the program worked fine, it didn't crash and burn. and > it have to access the adress where the vectors to the interrupt routines for > com-ports are located. Nevertheless, nearptr is still more dangerous than farptr. I don't even understand why did you need to write such a program using nearptr. > Can someone see the problem with this? Not in principle, but some stray pointer can damage your system even if the design is perfectly okay.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |