From: michael DOT mauch AT gmx DOT de (Michael Mauch) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: DJGPP, interprocess communication, and DPMI Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 02:17:49 +0200 Organization: Gerhard-Mercator-Universitaet -GH- Duisburg Lines: 36 Message-ID: <3432dbba.55370862@news.uni-duisburg.de> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp59.uni-duisburg.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:33:35 GMT, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Windows 95 already allows you to launch another program using the > START command. What is missing is (1) a means to make a connection > between the two programs, so that they could pass small (say, upto > 16KB) chunks of data via a simulated pipe; (2) a means for the child > program to tell the parent that it exited. At the moment, my latest version of the TSR has only a 100 byte buffer, but up to nearly 64 KB should be possible as well. The problem is that this means that the TSR has to reserve this buffer in plain DOS (before starting Windows), because we can only have shared memory between different DOS boxes if it's allocated in plain DOS. But I think, 16KB shouldn't be too much pain for most users, at least you can loadhigh the TSR. With the current 100 byte buffer I can transfer one line of text with reasonable speed, but for many lines it's still a bit slow. I think I have to implement a callback function in the receiver that can be called by the TSR (and hence by the sender). Right now, the receiver program has to poll all the time and look if there's something new in the TSR's buffer. The sender, OTOH, has to wait until the receiver has read the buffer. A callback would be much nicer; I'm working on it. > P.S. To keep this project compatible with the spirit of DJGPP, it > would be nice if it could be compiled with DJASM, although NASM is > also OK. Oh, thank you for drawing my attention to DJASM. I will have a look at it, now that I saw from src/stub/stub.asm that it uses Intel syntax. I always thought DJASM==GAS (or a wrapper for it, like gxx for cc1plus), and GAS had this ugly AT&T syntax and the "children, don't try this at home (or without gcc-produced source)" warning. If DJASM can produce .com binary files, it should be no problem to move from NASM to DJASM. Regards... Michael