Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

This version needs 0/0/0/0 Bytes - but not on EDR-DOS (Announce)

posted by ecm Homepage E-mail, Düsseldorf, Germany, 05.04.2009, 09:27

> > What's your reason not to?
>
> Risk.
Of what? Is Int21.25 crashing your system?

> > > > Comment your files better.
> > > See UI21DEB :-)
> > See what? See bad comments in UI21DEB
>
> I'm waiting for good comments in RxDOS source :hungry:
Yeah, I can promise you that you'll have to wait some more. I recently worked a bit on the 7.20N sources (and finally separated my macro files for this and 7.30) and might push it for a release soon. However I consider this alone useless anyway, because it aims to re-create any bug of RxDOS 7.1.5/7.2 it's based on. So I might as well just release it along with usable 7.30 betas later on.

> > Give your MCB an owner value of the associated memory block
>
> Then it would unhog of course.
No it won't unless the memory block which is to be hold resident is the same one as your precious PSP (then close all file handles and use Int27 or 21.31 instead). DOS memory deallocation during termination works by freeing all MCBs that are owned by the terminating PSP. If you allocate a new memory block then hack its MCB so that it points at the memory block itself (instead of to your PSP) it won't be freed by the program termination.

> > use the IBM Interrupt Sharing Protocol (IISP) when hooking
>
> > want to uninstall their interrupt handlers. IISP is a great solution to
> > the "can't uninstall because of other TSR" problem
>
> Interesting, if such a thing existed at all:
I don't know what "UTFG UTFI" is, but just read the AMIS description at Int2D in RBIL 61. It also presents how the IBM Interrupt Sharing Protocol entry looks and sometimes uses the abbreviated form ISP, which I don't want to use to avoid confusion with the term "Internet Service Provider". (There's also an older INTSHARE.DOC [but plain text] or something similar named file floating through the internets which describes only the IISP.)

> > Maybe because you're a real DOS user and think Int2F was only added in
> > later MS-DOS versions so that it "isn't quite DOS" enough?
>
> Because RBIL has much bloat on INT $2F
And it doesn't have much "bloat" on Int21, or what?

> and most of the stuff is either
> unreproductable, useless, or evil (all the "GetWindaubeVersion",
> "WindaubeOldApp", ... stuff).
Interestingly RBIL never uses such crappy fake Win32 function names as you seem to like doing.

---
l

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22763 Postings in 2122 Threads, 402 registered users (0 online)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum