Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 16:49:14 +0100 (MET)
From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
Subject: Re: flat pointer (why?)
In-reply-to: <3459F528.A82@trash.lip6.fr>
To: Fabrice ILPONSE <fabrice AT asim DOT lip6 DOT fr>
Cc: djgpp workers group <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.3.91.971031164458.445L-100000@acp3bf>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Fabrice ILPONSE wrote:
> 	I'm not agree with the useless of this kind of pointers!

> 	This idea is very useful not to move memory to memory when a single
> access to the destination address would permit to save cpu time.

I don't think there's really so much of a difference between your proposal
and the current effect of the farpeek/farpoke functions (which might
better be called 'assembler macros' anyway). 

> 	As i told it, those pointers are very dangerous and are reserved to
> expert user that have special features, for example, music play back
> with DMA use or DOS program data read or write.

And in what way would you implement a limitation of this feature to expert
users? After all, the change you suggest would require quite a bit of
modification to gcc itself, a thing DJ always tried to avoid, and with
good reason, IMHO. 

> 	Most of the other users would not need that pointers.

They may not exactly *need* it, but they'll see it, and then they
*will* use it, wether necessary or not. And then they'll be confused,
flooding us with questions about them.

HBB