Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:03:34 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Trouble with Assembly code
In-Reply-To: <9ml6td$m2f$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010830160015.1936C-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 30 Aug 2001, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> I suggest reconsidering whether you even *need* that function. It's a
> reinvention of the existing DJGPP libc function
> __dpmi_simulate_real_mode_interrupt(), so you had better just use that
> and be done with it, I guess.

I don't think __dpmi_simulate_real_mode_interrupt will fit the bill here, 
since this code instructs the DPMI server to copy 6 bytes from the PM 
stack to the RM stack, whereas __dpmi_simulate_real_mode_interrupt 
doesn't support this functionality.

I really don't understand why does this code need to copy data from the 
PM to the RM stack; I've never seen such a need before.  But if it is 
real in this case, our library functions cannot help.