X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From:	Martin Steuer <martin AT x DOT invalid>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Can you help?
Date:	Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:44:25 +0100
Lines:	18
Message-ID:	<47fuudFfcd69U1@news.dfncis.de>
References:	<002a01c644cd$45e6b5d0$36aebc3e AT AMILO>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	news.dfncis.de IO39xMpbSBLsqHlK1pyfhA3PBLtrP8Kk0BZ9IOmK6fd5E2zqRP7zkk67+z
User-Agent:	Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
X-Accept-Language:	en-us, en
In-Reply-To:	<002a01c644cd$45e6b5d0$36aebc3e@AMILO>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
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

Martin Jarman (Cabledoc) wrote:
> So here's my question(s).  If I were to use DJGPP, can I run the all the
> code between disable() and enable() in PM? (I think this is another way of
> asking if inp() in outp() can be used in PM without needing to return to RM,
> isn't it?)
If i'm not mistaken, aslong as interrupts are disabled, the machine will 
stay in PM, with the exception if you explicitly switch to RM.

> 
> Secondly, the above code only works well when surrounded by the disable()
> and enable() functions.  I noted from some of your documentation you have
> similar functions in PM.  Is it acceptable to run the loop for long periods
> with interrupts disabled in PM (and be confident that won't be interrupted)?

If you don't require the precise arrival of interrupts, such as 
Timerticks, disabling Interrupts for long periods should be no problem. 
It's basically the same as when you implemented your application under 
Realmode-DOS.

- Raw text -