Date:	Sun, 24 Dec 2000 08:19:48 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Tim Nicholson <djgpp_mail AT gizzy DOT co DOT uk>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Async COM managing
In-Reply-To:	<922p7b$8u5$1@uranium.btinternet.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1001224081539.7747E-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Tim Nicholson wrote:

> > Is it another way to obtain the expected result, without bioscom() ?
> > Can I use another functions able to *OPEN* / init / send / receive /
> *CLOSE*
> > the com port and leave the things clean on exit ?
> 
> I use a library called dzcomm which is an allegro add-on. It will allow you
> to access up to eight com ports and supports shared interrupts. You can
> implicitly open and close ports at any speed that your UART chip supports.

The problem in this thread was that using a COM port from a DOS box would 
disallow other (DOS?) programs running on Windows from accessing the 
port.  Those other programs are not DJGPP programs and were certainly not 
written using DZComm.

AFAIK, this is Windows' ``feature'': when a DOS program accesses a COM 
port, Windows makes it unavailable to other DOS boxes.  This seems to be 
Microsoft's way to ``virtualize'' the port.

Are you saying that you tried this configuration, and DZComm somehow 
avoids the problem of making the COM port appear to be busy to other DOS 
boxes?  If so, the way to do that should be seen by studying the DZComm 
sources.

- Raw text -