Xref: news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:4426 From: Ben Ashley Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: DJGPP Memory & Conversion Considerations Date: Thu, 30 May 96 13:54:07 GMT Organization: Flag Bearers Lines: 40 Message-ID: <833464447snz@flag.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: Ben AT flag DOT demon DOT co DOT uk To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Hi All, A few days a go, I posted a request for information on making a library being constructed in VC++1.00, available to DJGPP. After a bit of thinking, I realised it might be better, and advantageous, to continue this project in DJGPP itself. But, I have a few questions: 1. Apart from a few syntax changes (Ie, taking the '_' from in front of some library functions), is there anything I else I should be aware of? Is there any C++ facilities that are not support by DJGPP. I don't think I have done anything extra-ordinary. Most of the work is classes, and derived classes. If anybody has had any experience with VC++1.00, and they know of any problems I might have, please, could they tell me? :) 2. I saw a posting today, about the results of 'Malloc'. I am under the impression that DJGPP's malloc can reserve memory greater than 640k? Is this true? If so, what sort of pointers do I then need to use? Can I just use it like standard Malloc, only for larger amounts of memory? 3. Due to the sheer amount of class objects I use, and the inheritance, and virtual functions, this GUI is quite memory intensive. As DJGPP can use lots of memory, does it store classes in this area aswell? I do hope there will not be any problems during this conversion. It would be nice to make this GUI available to DJGPP, with an application builder and IDE. Any help would be appreciated :) -- Cheers, Ben -=Look for "Moo-Juice" on the IRC=- ---------------------====### legal notice ###====-------------------------- Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form,in whole or in part. License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $499. Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.