Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 13:22:47 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Anders David Skarin cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: DJGPP Conventional Base ? In-Reply-To: <374B3B89.355C84BA@swipnet.se> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Wed, 26 May 1999, Anders David Skarin wrote: > > Please don't post in HTML. It's downright annoying to separate the contents from the tags. > I've seen tutorials where it's stated that "djgpp_conventional_base" > changes across allocation calls, is it really true? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. It depends. The DJGPP FAQ list (which newbies are well-advised to read) tells more about this in section 18.7. > I have written some VBE2 routines for DJGPP, and they work perfectly, > even though I don't (as i've seen others do in their VBE routines) use > "djgpp_conventional_base" as an extra offset every time i use my mapped > graphics pointer. I only use it when I setu the pointers (in > VBE_setMode() ), and it works fine. Is this due to pure luck? Yes, consider yourself lucky. > Will I have to change this statement? If you want your program to be reliable, then yes. For that matter, I suggest to abandon use of nearptr at all, as most programs won't notice the speed difference; but the reliability from having memory protection is not something I would recommend to dismiss easily. > I'm using DJGPP2.11 does it differ on this point from previous versions? No. (And there's no version 2.11, I suppose you meant 2.01.)