Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 08:36:03 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: VBE question
In-Reply-To: <28c76e20.c6fa7a9c@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000409083542.7469N-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, batchex wrote:

> >What's wrong with the method suggested by the FAQ, anyway?
> >
> Umm, I just looking for a compromise, between memory protection
> and near pointers. Because I'll do much ASM in the project,
> using far pointers can cause much pain for me, all that pushing
> & popping segment pointers.

Sorry, I don't understand: what pushing and popping?  All you need to
access a far pointer in assembly is to load FS with the _dos_ds
selector (once) and then use the fs: segment override.

> And I think I left that behind when moving from real mode to
> protected mode programming....

You can leave that behind if you access the ``normal'' memory mapped
into your address space.  Accessing devices mapped into specific
absolute addresses is not something ``normal'' programs do.