Message-ID:	<390C5328.303A2C98@mtu-net.ru>
Date:	Sun, 30 Apr 2000 19:37:12 +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 1000430180037 DOT 1120F-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:
> >
> > DOS Extenders don't handle BIOS stuff in PMode, though. Neither CWSDPMI nor
> > DOS4GW nor WDOSX nor DOS32 nor 32RTM do that. Thay can't. Only Windows is
> > capable to do that in PMode, since it has PMode drivers for almost everything
> > and it can replace/hook native BIOS and DOS services.
> 
> Yes, Windows is one case I was thinking about, where the difference
> between __dpmi_int and int86 is significant.  DOSEmu is another one.
> I suspect that NT and Windows 2000 are yet another such case.
> 
> Note that if you run DJGPP programs not from a DOS extender (as is mostly
> the case with DJGPP programs), it's the V86 monitor's responsibility to
> reflect the INT instruction to the real-mode handler; the DPMI host
> usually doesn't do anything with it.  (In contrast, __dpmi_int is
> handled by the DPMI host.)  The V86 monitor is usually part of the memory
> manager, such as EMM386.

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. Parhaps, only the time of execution may be different. The rest should
be the same.

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

- Raw text -