Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 10:05:28 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Matt <para AT tampabay DOT rr DOT com>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: DPMI problem
In-Reply-To: <pqx07.85803$WB1.23437001@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010704100240.3231V-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Matt wrote:

> "Hans-Bernhard Broeker" <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de> wrote in message
> news:9hpbse$bee$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE...
> > Matt <para AT tampabay DOT rr DOT com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I cannot use the movedata functions, which I have already looked into.
> > > The game writes direct to video hardware,
> >
> > It shouldn't. At least not directly, all the time. Note that access to
> > video memory is noticeably slower than to main memory, usually.
[...]
> There is a big difference between "shouldn't" and "does", and since I didn't
> write this code, "does" is quite operative.

You could consider rewriting it.

> It doesn't read vram
> fortunately, but it does write directly to vram. The code is poorly
> organized, and the only hope I have of fixing it is direct access to some
> buffer.

Then simply use the nearptr hack.  With poorly organized code which
assumes that video memory is writable by an absolute address, it sounds 
like this is your only alternative, anyway.