From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: far pointers again
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:19:12 +0200
Organization: NetVision Israel	
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991006161838.13916O-100000@is>
References: <7tcdq7$7ug AT cs DOT vu DOT nl> <7tcslg$ffj AT cs DOT vu DOT nl> <7td6iu$spa$1 AT solomon DOT cs DOT rose-hulman DOT edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: is.elta.co.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: news.netvision.net.il 939219477 17946 199.203.121.2 (6 Oct 1999 14:17:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT netvision DOT net DOT il
NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Oct 1999 14:17:57 GMT
X-Sender: eliz AT is
In-Reply-To: <7td6iu$spa$1@solomon.cs.rose-hulman.edu>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Damian Yerrick wrote:

> I agree. I liked the way Borland did far pointers. It would make
> video access easier and speed porting of legacy real-mode
> code.

That's what nearptr hack is for.  Why do you need another solution for
the same problem?

> Should some fellow suggest this to the GCC group?

Go ahead, if you think it's a good idea.  Since most of the drive
behind the x86 support in GCC is Linux, I don't expect this suggestion
to be too easy to get through, but that doesn't need to prevent you
from making it.