Message-ID:	<39537CB5.4F2BBF06@htsol.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:05:25 +0300
From:	Yoram Hofman <yoram AT htsol DOT com>
Organization:	Hi-Tech Solutions
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: dosmemget doesn't work proparly.
References:	<395335FA DOT 682138A0 AT htsol DOT com> <200006231200 DOT PAA32634 AT alpha DOT netvision DOT net DOT il>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	212.179.100.126
X-Trace:	23 Jun 2000 18:05:35 +0200, 212.179.100.126
Lines:	29
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>
> 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).

It is right.

> 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*.

I'll try movedata.

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

Thank you, Eli.

- Raw text -