Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:27 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Alexei A. Frounze" <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: 3rd Try: Maybe an asm problem? (Problems linking)
In-Reply-To: <390C5328.303A2C98@mtu-net.ru>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000501115336.9191G-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:

> Anyway, I think there is no serious difference for a programmer what
> kind of INT is used, if OS has correct support for DPMI and its V86
> monitor also works properly.

Unfortunately, you cannot rely on DPMI being correctly supported and
on V86 monitor working properly.  For example, last year we found that
function 1680h of the interrupt 2Fh, if issued directly (through
int86) in nested DPMI programs, wedges the DOS box on some versions of
Windows 9X, while the same function call that goes through __dpmi_int
works correctly.  (See the end of section 6.1 of the FAQ for more
about this.)

That's why I think it is important that programmers understand the
differences between these two ways of invoking a real-mode service.