Message-Id: <200007211841.VAA24548@mailgw1.netvision.net.il>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:40:46 +0200
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.2.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
In-reply-to: <bjsgnsceubs20n5d6b3rl32hvo4ebea0dj@4ax.com> (message from Damian
	Yerrick on Fri, 21 Jul 2000 16:00:45 GMT)
Subject: Re: Watcom vs djgpp
References: <5337D585DDD3D111996B0008C728F07DA42A4B AT pa00fsr01 DOT pa DOT atitech DOT com> <200007210832 DOT KAA07828 AT mailgw3 DOT netvision DOT net DOT il> <bjsgnsceubs20n5d6b3rl32hvo4ebea0dj AT 4ax DOT com>
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

> From: Damian Yerrick <Bullcr_pd_yerrick AT hotmail DOT comRemoveBullcr_p>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 16:00:45 GMT
>
> >  - does the source use inline assembly?
> 
> Don't the latest GCC and Binutils support Intel syntax?

Gas does support Intel syntax, but it's tricky to make GCC invoke it
with the appropriate switch.

Anyway, that's not the problem I had in mind.  Watcom has special
pragmas frequently used with inline assembly, which will need to be
converted to GCC equivalents.  This is not easy.

> >  - how much of the code calls real-mode interrupts through int86 or
> >    int386 and their ilk, and expects them to transparently support
> >    buffers in protected-mode memory?
> 
> __dpmi_int()

That, and moving data to/from the transfer buffer.