Message-ID: <004401c0d8a5$820d7f60$0c4011d4@telekabel.at> From: "Brian Chance" To: "DJGPP Delorie Mailing List" Subject: Re: DPMI Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 18:31:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0041_01C0D8B6.45858680" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C0D8B6.45858680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:47 PM Subject: Re: DPMI > [Please don't post in HTML.] D'oh! Considering this current e-mail isn't in HTML, it won't happen = again. Promise. ;) > On Tue, 8 May 2001, Brian Chance wrote: > > > I realize that Djgpp links its output natively to load the DPMI = server > > for protected mode compatibility. Is it possible to produce files = which > > are independant of DPMI with Djgpp? > > DPMI is used not only for entering the protected mode, but also for > all system calls issued by the low-level library functions. Memory > allocation, file I/O (including reading the program into extended > memory from its .exe file), hooking hardware interrupts, support for > debugging programs--all these and more are handled via DPMI services, > because issuing real-mode interrupts from a protected-mode program is > a tricky business. Stuff such as interrupts and Filesystem specifications aren't really relevant to me, actually i'd much rather know if its possible to write a program in DJGPP for pure protected mode without the need of DPMI. > If you remove DPMI, you will have to rewrite all that low-level stuff > (or give up the functions which need it). So basically the answer is "Yes", though i'd lose all Dos and = higher-level operating ability? Well i know what DPMI's responsibilities are, and this isn't as bad as it sounds, mainly most of the important functions that i need can be rewritten (eg. Memory mapped I/O display output).

----- Original Message = -----
Sent:=20 Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: DPMI


> = [Please=20 don't post in HTML.]

D'oh!  Considering this current e-mail = isn't in=20 HTML, it won't happen again.
Promise. ;)

> On Tue, 8 May = 2001,=20 Brian Chance wrote:
>
> >  I realize that Djgpp = links its=20 output natively to load the DPMI server
> > for protected mode=20 compatibility. Is it possible to produce files which
> > are=20 independant of DPMI with Djgpp?
>
> DPMI is used not only = for=20 entering the protected mode, but also for
> all system calls = issued by the=20 low-level library functions.  Memory
> allocation, file I/O=20 (including reading the program into extended
> memory from its = .exe file),=20 hooking hardware interrupts, support for
> debugging programs--all = these=20 and more are handled via DPMI services,
> because issuing = real-mode=20 interrupts from a protected-mode program is
> a tricky=20 business.

Stuff such as interrupts and Filesystem specifications=20 aren't
really relevant to me, actually i'd much rather know if its = possible=20 to
write a program in DJGPP for pure protected mode without the = need
of=20 DPMI.

 > If you remove DPMI, you will have to rewrite all = that=20 low-level stuff
> (or give up the functions which need = it).

So=20 basically the answer is "Yes", though i'd lose all Dos and=20 higher-level
operating ability? Well i know what DPMI's = responsibilities are,=20 and
this isn't as bad as it sounds, mainly most of the important=20 functions
that i need can be rewritten (eg. Memory mapped I/O display = output).
<PS. I tried formatting this one as well as i could, = maybe it was=20 a
mess-up of the CR/LF's in my e-mail client? ... Or maybe = Outlook
Express=20 just doesn't like humans.
------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C0D8B6.45858680--