Date:	Tue, 8 Feb 1994 10:32:41 -0800 (PST)
From:	Gordon Hogenson <ghogenso AT mammoth DOT chem DOT washington DOT edu>
Subject:	Unsupported Ints
To:	djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu

On Tue, 8 Feb 1994, Grzegorz B. Mazur wrote:

> 
> You can't call DOS ints (including int 2f) in DJGPP in a direct way.
> Use DPMI simulation functions instead...
> Gregory

Would it be a problem to actually have DJGPP say something to this
effect whenever an 'unsupported interrupt' message comes up, or perhaps
a warning when 'int86' is used?  Or are there some situations where
you would still want to use int86 rather than the go32 simulation?
If not, why support int86 at all?  If the issue is "under VCPI, use
int86, under DPMI, use go32_dpmi_simulate_int", then why not have a function
which automatically calls the appropriate one?

int86_I_really_mean_this  -- calls regular int86
int86                     -- calls the most appropriate interrupt
go32_dpmi_simulate_int    -- always calls the DPMI simulation function

I really think this sort of thing should be transparent to the user
who doesn't wish to mind about whether he/she's running under DPMI or VCPI.
This would aid a lot in portability of code, would it not?  No need to

#define int86 go32_dpmi_simulate_int.

On the other hand, it could be I don't understand a whit of this.  A good
discussion in the texinfo manual for 'int86' and the like would be
most helpful as well.  (Please don't take this as a flame.)

Gordon

- Raw text -