From: "DeHackEd" <not DOT given AT out>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References: <7lgctl$7r4$1 AT news5 DOT svr DOT pol DOT co DOT uk> <930893939 DOT 241152 AT kyle DOT inet DOT net DOT nz> <377D4C68 DOT 16AD5C62 AT cartsys DOT com> <7ll4if$g3h$1 AT news5 DOT svr DOT pol DOT co DOT uk>
Subject: Re: Virtual Screens
Lines: 25
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Message-ID: <i4pf3.1009$Vb4.3887@tundra.ops.attcanada.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 14:26:22 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.194.222.249
X-Trace: tundra.ops.attcanada.net 931011982 142.194.222.249 (Sat, 03 Jul 1999 14:26:22 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 14:26:22 GMT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


David Dean - [DS]Deaner666 <david AT deanhouse61 DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> wrote in
message news:7ll4if$g3h$1 AT news5 DOT svr DOT pol DOT co DOT uk...
> I actually worked out some protracted method of doing it myself using
> dosmemput(), but I will take both pieces of advice into account because I
> don't think my version is very well optimised at present. Thanks muchly
> though.
> Are the near pointer hacks really that bad? Surely its just the same as
> programming in real mode rather than protected mode?

That is the reason some people don't like doing it. Programming in protected
mode give you at least assurance that if your program does overwrite bad
memory, it's your program and not all of DOS that crashes. I can't say so
much about Windows without the source code to look at (hey Bill Gates,
that's a hint!). If you are planning on writing to specific memory segments
(ie. video memory) only at specific times, then dosmemput is probably safer.
If you really do intend to write everywhere all the time (?), maybe
disabling protected mode is the way to go. Just make sure you include
serious memory checking.

--
DeHackEd
No emails please, the address is fake.