From: muta...@gmail.com   
      
   On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 1:42:23 AM UTC+11, James Harris wrote:   
      
   > > Why can't you write 16-bit C code to do that instead   
   > > of assembler? That's what I do. If I had my time again   
   > > I would write it using the huge memory model of   
   > > Watcom C instead.   
      
   > If you mean you'd become dependent on a particular compiler then I'd   
   > suggest that that's a trap. I thought you wrote in C89. Your same source   
   > should be compilable by ANY compatible compiler.   
      
   Yes, I write in C90, but I am using structures (the   
   32-bit OS) bigger than 64k. That means the proper   
   thing to do is use the huge memory model.   
      
   Turbo C doesn't produce correct code in huge memory   
   model. Smaller C does, but uses 386 instructions.   
   Watcom C produces 8086 instructions. Microsoft C   
   probably does too, but I don't have a test result. And   
   Watcom is free. It is up to the other compilers to   
   behave properly, not for me to change my C90 code.   
      
   BFN. Paul.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)