Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/08/20/21:33:41
Wojciech Galazka wrote:
>
> A. Sinan Unur wrote:
> >
> > Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > >
> > > The only reliable way is to write the function in assembly.
> >
> > assuming i have the interrupt handler written in assembly, how do i go
> > about locking it? i would appreciate it if someone could tell me how it
> > is done, or point me to an example.
> >
> Maybe DJGPP FAQ points 18.3 or 18.6 ?
maybe i should be clearer. i have read and know how to use the empty
function trick to lock memory used by a function. however, both shawn
and eli have pointed out that the only failsafe way to do it is to write
the interrupt handler in assembly. i need some clarification/pointers on
how to proceed once you have the handler in assembly. my interrupt
handler is very simple (just adds a 32 bit number to a global queue), so
even i should be able to write it. again, i would appreciate any info.
would the dpmi/api sources be any help. i have been looking at them but
i cannot exactly tell what is going on.
i guess the point about assembly is that it is not subject to further
optimization by the compiler and the size of the function will remain
fixed, correct? in that case, my question is answered.
i would like to point out that FAQ 18.3 (software interrupts) and 18.6
(nearptr hack) are not relevant. please do read the sections you think
would be helpful before posting.
--
Sinan
*******************************************************************
A. Sinan Unur WWWWWW
|--O+O
mailto:sinan DOT unur AT cornell DOT edu C ^
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/asu1/ \ ~/
*******************************************************************
- Raw text -