Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:14:33 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Gisle Vanem <giva AT bgnett DOT no>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Inline asm: lcall & various binutils versions
In-Reply-To: <Pine.UW2.3.95.1000601114627.20424A-100000@bryggen.bgnett.no>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000601131319.19365A@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 Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Gisle Vanem wrote:

> But I think he meant wrong alignment of
> '__dpmi_paddr.selector'.  Without some #pragma's around '__dpmi_paddr',
> the long-call *could* cause a crash.

I'd prefer to solve this without #pragma's.  What exactly is wrong with 
the current layout of __dpmi_paddr, if used in an lcall?