Re: DRL updated! -- please stop that INT discussion! ( FPC )

Eric Auer wrote:

>Hi,
>if FPC is that great, please take my DRL.PAS and the original one,
>and use the OLD crt style screen stuff combined with the NEW fixes
>for division by zero and LFN hiding. "diff" is your friend.
>
Well, you sounded as if you saw many problems with porting to 32-bit, 
and I just mentioned there aren't so many problems. I think FPC is a 
good piece of work. As I said, I don't see a great interest in porting 
DRL to 32-bit.

>Take care: The old version had this inline assembly string upcase,
>the new version is more compatible. The old version uses TextAttr := ...
>to set the color, the new version uses ANSI. The old version uses BIOS
>and DOS interrupts for getting the color, the number of lines on the
>screen, and to do various DOS stuff. The new version uses msdos()
>instead of intr() and msdos() mixed for the DOS access. It uses access
>to $40:[...] for some things where the old version uses interrupts.
>
Well, you could do mem[$40:offset] and that would work too.

>It uses inline assembly at ONE place where the old version uses intr().
>
>What the heck. Feel free to do anything you like with DRL. Having it
>ported to FPC sounds nice, as long as FPC can produce 16bit real mode
>code as well. I think the FPC version will have the advantage of being
>easier to port to Linux, but for DOS, the Turbo Pascal version does what
>it is supposed to.
>
Unfortunately, FPC is a 32-bit compiler. But it also gives you the 
choice to keep up 16 and 32 bit versions (or even Win32/Linux/...) 
versions of your programs without many compatibility programs. In this 
case, the Borland-ness of the compiler is your friend ;-)
If you don't want a 32-bit version, don't waste your time. I just wanted 
to say going32 is not hard.

Aitor