Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

user32.dll (Announce)

posted by kerravon E-mail, Ligao, Free World North, 05.07.2021, 01:07

> > > For the first (1) set of calls , keep in mind that the Windows
> console
> > is
> > > in a different (OEM) encoding than the api (ANSI). How do you handle
> > that
> > > difference (OEM vs Ansi) in your program?
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand the issue, I know that
> > OEM means "Other Equipment Manufacturer", but I
> > would be surprised if Pascal 83-0 was so complicated.
>
> Please read. Windows is so complicated, I told you how to neutralize it if
> it doesn't matter for your PDDos/386.
I have not encountered the complication you talk
of, and calling msvcrt.dll for C90 functions is
not complicated, and if you want to add complicated
things it can all be done within msvcrt.dll.

> IOW on Windows the runtime must hide the fact that the two apis (console
> I/O and other APIs use differing charsets). Just to keep extended ascii
> (and thus basic European accents) working.
I only support console mode at the moment, and it
is likely to stay there for a long time.

> Since you don't go for running basic Windows binaries, but only use the
> compilers to hack it for your OS, it doesn't matter much for you, and you
> can simply change those calls to user32.dll conversion routines to simply
> copy the string 1:1.
BTW, making code C90-compliant so that it works
on my OS is not really "hacking". The hack was
in the original source code for not having a
default C90 target.

> > I am thinking that ANSI interpretation belongs
> > in the BIOS layer rather than PDOS proper, but
> > I'm not sure.
>
> Windows 11 will require UEFI. I suspect the number of PCs with legacy
> biosses might start to dwindle soon.
The BIOS layer can call UEFI as an option.

> > Let me see if I can get this really basic
> > functionality working first.
>
> This message was all about explaining why the functions were used in the
> /runtime/ of FPC, and what you could do to get rid of those user32
> dependencies.
Ok, I've moved on. I found that the FPC runtime
could simply be replaced. So far, anyway.

BFN. Paul.

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22632 Postings in 2109 Threads, 402 registered users, 394 users online (1 registered, 393 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum