From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: problem with far pointers Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:37:27 +0200 Organization: NetVision Israel Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <7ssgdl$pg AT cs DOT vu DOT nl> <7sssfq$rds AT acp3bf DOT knirsch DOT de> <7su41v$a4q$1 AT solomon DOT cs DOT rose-hulman DOT edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: is.elta.co.il Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: news.netvision.net.il 938691374 21315 199.203.121.2 (30 Sep 1999 11:36:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse AT netvision DOT net DOT il NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Sep 1999 11:36:14 GMT X-Sender: eliz AT is In-Reply-To: <7su41v$a4q$1@solomon.cs.rose-hulman.edu> To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp 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 Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Damian Yerrick wrote: > Shouldn't movedata() be called farmemmove() or farmemcpy()? I don't think so. `movedata' was modelled on its Borland namesake which accepts two far pointers. If you want to rename it to `farmemmove' or some such, you'd need to reverse the source and destination arguments, to make it consistent with `memmove'. > Maybe someone could put true far pointer support > (a la Borland) into DJGPP. That would require extensive changes to GCC (and probably GAS as well). It doesn't seem like a worthwhile investment of energy, especially since in C++ you can overload the operator [] with a call to _far* functions.