Message-Id:	<200006231200.PAA32634@alpha.netvision.net.il>
Date:	Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:02:50 +0200
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.1.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	Yoram Hofman <yoram AT htsol DOT com>
CC:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<395335FA.682138A0@htsol.com> (message from Yoram Hofman on Fri,
	23 Jun 2000 13:03:38 +0300)
Subject:	Re: dosmemget doesn't work proparly.
References:	<395335FA DOT 682138A0 AT htsol DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:03:38 +0300
> From: Yoram Hofman <yoram AT htsol DOT com>
> 
> I need really quickly read a big portion of information from frame
> memory controller (16 bit interface). I tried dosmemget() and
> dosmemgetw(). Both failed. So I use "farptr" functions. But I think
> usage of  dosmemXXX functions can be more effective.
> Anybody can give a tip why these functions fail?

They don't fail for me.  Since you didn't post even a simple code
fragment that hows how did you use them, and didn't tell what does
``both failed'' mean, I can only guess what could have gone wrong.

One possibility is that your controller is mapped into the program's
address space with a call to __dpmi_physical_address_mapping (see
section 18.7 of the FAQ).  If that is the case, you cannot use dosmem*
functions because they implicitly assume the use of the _dos_ds
selector, which doesn't include the memory mapped in by
__dpmi_physical_address_mapping.  But you still should be able to use
movedata, which is also faster than _farpeek* and _farpoke*.

If my guess is wrong, please post the missing info.

- Raw text -