Message-ID: <39537CB5.4F2BBF06@htsol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:05:25 +0300
From: Yoram Hofman <yoram AT htsol DOT com>
Organization: Hi-Tech Solutions
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: dosmemget doesn't work proparly.
References: <395335FA DOT 682138A0 AT htsol DOT com> <200006231200 DOT PAA32634 AT alpha DOT netvision DOT net DOT il>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.179.100.126
X-Trace: 23 Jun 2000 18:05:35 +0200, 212.179.100.126
Lines: 29
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com



Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>
> They don't fail for me.  Since you didn't post even a simple code
> fragment that hows how did you use them, and didn't tell what does
> ``both failed'' mean, I can only guess what could have gone wrong.
>
> One possibility is that your controller is mapped into the program's
> address space with a call to __dpmi_physical_address_mapping (see
> section 18.7 of the FAQ).

It is right.

> If that is the case, you cannot use dosmem*
> functions because they implicitly assume the use of the _dos_ds
> selector, which doesn't include the memory mapped in by
> __dpmi_physical_address_mapping.  But you still should be able to use
> movedata, which is also faster than _farpeek* and _farpoke*.

I'll try movedata.

>
>
> If my guess is wrong, please post the missing info.

Thank you, Eli.