Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp From: rd5718 AT irix DOT bris DOT ac DOT uk (Rich Dawe) Subject: Re: Protected mode ints & the FAQ (for Eli Z) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: irix.bris.ac.uk Message-ID: Lines: 20 Sender: usenet AT fsa DOT bris DOT ac DOT uk (Usenet) Organization: University of Bristol, England X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] References: <003701be1d4d$df0533e0$c5223182 AT marst96 DOT m DOT resnet DOT pitt DOT edu> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 11:07:05 GMT To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com mark reed (marst96+@pitt.edu) wrote: : Doesnt it say that number 3 is to restore the orignal handler and that you : must use what you got from number 1 (not 2)? You may have misread it, or its : a typo or error. You are right the first 2 steps are what you need. The : third step would be restoring the original handler when you are done, but : use the info you got from step 1. No, step 2 is the part where a wrapper function is created for your interrupt handler function. If you don't want to chain to the interrupt, then you have to call a different function to _go32_dpmi_chain_protected_mode_interrupt() (can't remember the name now) and then you *do* have to call _go32_dpmi_set_protected_mode_interrupt(). My point was that _g_d_c_p_m_i() calls _g_d_set_p_m_i() for you, which disagrees with the FAQ. -- ============================================================================== Rich Dawe - 4th-year MSci Physicist @ Bristol University, UK richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com, http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/ ==============================================================================