| ??? 01/15/03 23:35 Read: times |
#36550 - RE: Fixed pointer allocations..... |
Is it possible that the the buffers are all on 256-byte boundaries because the program is using DPTR to access memory and they only want to deal with updating DPL as opposed to maybe having to update DPH as well? I can't see where this would be an issue in 'C', but I can see it being a lazy approach to buffers in assembly.
It could also be that the original program didn't trust his C compiler to properly manage memory so he/she decided to define memory addresses themselves. Having done work in assembly I've been tempted to do something like that when working in C but, obviously, if you're going to work with C you have to have a certain level of trust in your development tools. Perhaps this programmer didn't have that level of trust (?). The other possibility is that the program was just poorly written. I assume there is no information on the original design assumptions and/or the original people responsible? Craig Steiner |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Fixed pointer allocations..... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Fixed pointer allocations..... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Fixed pointer allocations..... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Fixed pointer allocations..... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Fixed pointer allocations..... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Fixed pointer allocations..... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Fixed pointer allocations..... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Fixed pointer allocations..... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Fixed pointer allocations..... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Fixed pointer allocations..... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Fixed pointer allocations..... | 01/01/70 00:00 |



