Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 23:44:51 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Christoph Kukulies <kuku AT gilberto DOT physik DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: dpmi_int - any caveats (again)
In-Reply-To: <199703111137.MAA07444@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970311234430.2704R-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Christoph Kukulies wrote:

> Could there be any cach flushing effects when using 
> farpeek(), farpoke() and dpmi_int?
> 
> E.g. that a realmode driver sees a certain memory location
> to be zero while a different value is passed to protected mode?

I don't think it's at all possible.  A memory location is either
cached or not, but it never depends on what mode the processor is in,
AFAIK.  Maybe you should tell a bit more details about the problem,
though.