Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

polling (Announce)

posted by Rugxulo Homepage, Usono, 02.06.2011, 00:37

> > Int 16h,ah=01 is more simple to call than int
> > 31h, ax=0300h, that's the main advantage I see.
> >
> > To be sure, I just verified that calling int 2F, ax=1680h thru DPMI Int
> > 31h, ax=0300h indeed works as expected with NTVDM.
>
> Ah, so shouldn't 2F.1680 via 31.0300 be preferred then? At least 2F.1680 is
> properly defined to idle, while NTVDM's implementation extends 16.01
> somehow to make it idle.
>
> Aside from preference, that means it should always be fine to call 2F.1680
> via 31.0300 if direct 2F.1680 isn't supported in protected mode?
>
> (I verified that NTVDM indeed doesn't pretend to support 2F.1680 in
> protected mode. Calling that service leaves AL unchanged.)
That's pretty dopey. I know Mined/DJGPP (thanks to my wimpy suggestion) uses that DPMI call, and it works under XP. Anyways, a quick (hopefully correct) test doesn't show it supported at all under DOSEMU, which I find odd. I know DR-DOS 7.03 supports it too, as do others probably, though probably not CWSDPMI. (RBIL only mentions Win 3+, DOS 5+ [eh?], DPMI 1.0+ [who??], OS/2 2.0+.)

Yeah, I know, silly to call a DPMI 1.0 call for mTCP (real mode), but if it works, it works! But I definitely wouldn't call it ten bazillion times a second.

Oh well, it probably doesn't majorly matter anyways.

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22632 Postings in 2109 Threads, 402 registered users, 371 users online (0 registered, 371 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum