Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!proto!doug
From: doug@proto.com (Doug Huffman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: Intel 386 C
Message-ID: <1991Jun18.201857.19152@proto.com>
Date: 18 Jun 91 20:18:57 GMT
References: <1234@ocsmd.com> <4097@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> <1991Jun13.231255.7781@proto.com> <1991Jun14.020902.29929@netcom.COM> <1991Jun15.094142.10958@proto.com>
Organization: Prototronics @ Sandpoint, Idaho
Lines: 28

I wrote:

>feustel@netcom.COM (David Feustel) writes:

>>Two questions:
>>1) Is Intel's compiler DPMI 0.9 or 1.0 compliant?
>>2) Are you SURE the Zortech's dos extender is DPMI compliant?
>>2a) If so, again, 0.9 or 1.0?

>1)  I can't find my brochure on Intel right now so I don't know for sure
>that they even make a claim one way or the other.

I just called Intel's "FaxBACK Information Service" and got document #9902
(call 800-525-3019 from a Touch-Tone phone).  In that document they claim
"The Code Builder DOS Extender conforms to the DPMI (DOS Protected Mode 
Interface) specification version 0.9..."

The 1.0 spec requires all 0.9 conforming programs to work with 1.0.  So there
shouldn't be any problems in this regard (same applies to the Zortech DOS
extender).

Also see an ad for it in the July 1991 issue Dr. Dobb's Journal (page 53).
Also see an ad for the Zortech Compiler and DOS extenders in the same 
magazine page 27.

-- 
uunet!proto!doug
doug@proto.com