Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:51:12 +0530
Message-Id: <200006151721.WAA00659@midpec.com>
From: Prashant TR <tr AT midpec DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006151354020.15819-100000@roadrunner.grendel.net>
	(message from Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel on Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:58:46
	+0600 (LKT))
Subject: Re: dos color ?
References:  <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0006151354020 DOT 15819-100000 AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net>
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

The DPMI spec., AFAIK, never tells you that calls like "INT 10h" are
passed to real mode. That's what the function "simulate real-mode
interrupt vector" is for.

You also can't blame an extender for not passing INT 10h since you
ought to be using the "right thing" to get the right results ;-).

Prashant

> 
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Prashant TR wrote:
> 
> > IMHO, this is *not* a good idea. This is ideal for real mode
> > programs. You can never be sure that the "INT 10" will be passed to
> > real mode. Some extenders support it, some don't. The best way to do
> 
> AFAIK aren't int 10h and  21h (among certain others) guaranteed to be
> passed on to  the real mode handler...
> 
> DOS4GW certainly does it as do the many other extenders (PMW etc) i have
> come across.
> 
> I don't think that a proper extender can refrain from passing dos and bios
> function calls to real mode and handle it all by itself....