Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

opinion (Developers)

posted by ecm Homepage E-mail, Düsseldorf, Germany, 29.05.2011, 14:49

> CM's thought provoking comments.

Agree.

> - never execute from freed memory (duh!)

Agree.

> - freeing/splitting of mem blocks done by direct MCB access, protected
> by CLI. (No unsafe int 21 4A nor 49)

Agree.

> - allocation of the final block for TSR placement is done by DOS 21/48,
> rather than duplicating its function in my code, still inside the section
> protected by CLI.
> It doesn't matter that int 21 will internally do STI, since
> interrupting TSRs will be prepared to recognise when they were invoked in
> DOS (having hooked int 21 presumably) and behave accordingly. This is
> unlike my previous idea ("fake" INDOS while not actually in DOS,
> which was feeble and indeed unnecessary).

Possibly disagree. Have to see source code.

> As soon as I've more free time I'll pack and upload an updated testing
> pack.

Agree.

> See you all

Agree.

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22049 Postings in 2034 Threads, 396 registered users, 241 users online (0 registered, 241 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum