From: Nate Eldredge <neldredge AT hmc DOT edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Fastest bitblt?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 14:00:58 -0800
Organization: InterWorld Communications
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <83g0ud56n9.fsf@mercury.st.hmc.edu>
References: <83mebssig8p8d943fekqr2sgumh48ermno AT 4ax DOT com> <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 10002261941000 DOT 1032-100000 AT darkstar DOT grendel DOT net> <eojjbs4ondjp9r8k8e48ij0bq64h4t03s3 AT 4ax DOT com> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000228120242 DOT 10292B AT is>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury.st.hmc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: nntp1.interworld.net 951775393 88885 134.173.45.219 (28 Feb 2000 22:03:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet AT nntp1 DOT interworld DOT net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Feb 2000 22:03:13 GMT
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.5
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> writes:

> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Damian Yerrick wrote:
> 
> > Protected mode only provides a mechanism for memory protection; it
> > doesn't require that operating systems provide such protection.
> 
> Not true.  Memory protection is built into protected mode, at least to 
> some degree.  Access rights checking and segment-level protection are 
> always active, as they are inherent to PM.  Page-level protection is 
> optional.

True.  But actually having protection requires also that something set
what is to be protected.  I.e. you can set the segment limit to
0xffffffff.  Limit checking is still active, but I wouldn't consider
the resulting state to be "protection".

-- 

Nate Eldredge
neldredge AT hmc DOT edu