Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 14:43:49 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Oscar Almer <firstcheesemaster AT netscape DOT net>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [Re: BIOS problem]
In-Reply-To: <19990527080410.29626.qmail@ww183.netaddress.usa.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990527144133.26821B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On 27 May 1999, Oscar Almer wrote:

> I'll make this clear: the program worked fine, it didn't crash and burn. and
> it have to access the adress where the vectors to the interrupt routines for
> com-ports are located.

Nevertheless, nearptr is still more dangerous than farptr.  I don't even 
understand why did you need to write such a program using nearptr.

> Can someone see the problem with this?

Not in principle, but some stray pointer can damage your system even if 
the design is perfectly okay.