> After thinking a bit about this, I'm fairly certain that FreeDOS is > NOT (sufficiantly) SDA compliant.
> ... > > some of the problems above might be handled by placing CLI/STI at > proper locations. some are more difficult. > > but I'm pretty certain that FreeDOS hasn't a lot of CLI/STI's > sprinkled at clever positions. Probably not. That's something you really need to think about as you're writing the code. You also need to do things like preserving things (usually in CPU registers or on a stack) instead of using static memory variables. > I have absolutely no idea how this situation is for MSDOS and DRDOS. > as MS 'invented' the SDA, they might have put some (and probably > more) into the proper places. at least I would think so. I would certainly hope so, too. Based on the description it seems as though that was the intention of IBM/MS. In the particular case I'm considering, what I was hoping to do is have the TSR temporarily "take over" DOS so that it could use the DOS open/read/write file functions. Allocating memory would also be a nice thing to have in TSRs at times. The way I'm trying to getting around that problem is to monitor the InDOS and Critical Error flags and some other things (like INT 28h). But I'm sometimes getting false readings, especially in some Virtual Machines. For example, some VM's don't seem to implement the InDOS flag at all (or if it's there it's not located where it's supposed to be) which is causing me some grief. _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
