From: nowhere@never.at   
      
   On 15.06.2021 14:28, muta...@gmail.com wrote:   
      
   >> [about INTx014...]   
   >> did you ever see that INT 00..1F are reserved for CPU exceptions ?   
      
   > No, I didn't know that, but I presume you mean in   
   > protected mode.   
      
   yes, but not only. Exceptions 0x0F..0x18 can occur in RM as well.   
      
   > I used to do INT 13H etc in protected mode, and it would   
   > be translated into an INT 13H in real mode, but Alica changed   
   > the code so that it has this:   
      
   > #define BIOS_INT_OFFSET 0x90 /* BIOS interrupt 0x10 is moved to 0xA0. */   
      
   a well known documented alias for INT0x10 is INT0x6D   
      
   > She also copied the real mode interrupt vectors to match.   
   > I'm not sure if she considered the option of subtracting   
   > 0x90 from the interrupt number when it reached the   
   > real mode code instead.   
   > I would ask her if Microsoft's goons hadn't got to her first.   
      
   IRQs and INTs...(origin was IRQ0..7 at INT8 and IRQ8.. at INT7x)   
   I saw that as weird, so my IRQ_0..15 were remapped to INT_50..5F.   
      
   BUT my DOS-emulator trap all INT instructions and call my own   
   code for desired functions instead of BIOS INTs.   
   __   
   wolfgang   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)