Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 17:34:12 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Alexei A. Frounze" <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: 3rd Try: Maybe an asm problem? (Problems linking)
In-Reply-To: <390BFA5B.F749B652@mtu-net.ru>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000430173245.1120A-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 Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > 
> > No, int86 issues the INT nn instruction in protected mode.
> 
> But the result is still the same. DOS Extender or hosting OS switches modes or
> emulates direct INTs, if it is capable to do that. :)

Not necessarily.  Depending on the DPMI server and the underlying OS, the 
INT instruction might be handled entirely in protected mode.