Re: Interrupts

[agate!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!news.oc.com!convex! pelakh@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Boris Pelakh)]

In article <jmacleod.79@fox.nstn.ns.ca> jmacleod@fox.nstn.ns.ca (James Mac Leod
) writes:
>In article <1993Feb17.161508.30722@iitmax.iit.edu> LEDUC@chico.acc.iit.edu (US
ERS) writes:
>>My question is: instead of using the overhead of tasks, is it
>>possible to tie the interrupt directly to a procedure?
>
>I don't think the procedure would work.  All task gets activated when the 
>mainline program gets activated.  Therefore it is actually waiting for 
>something to happen at 16#xxx#.  A procedure is only active during its 
>lifecycle.  Once the procedure has completed it needs some other procedure 
>to activate it and cannot be activated beyond a procedural call.

If you have a Verdix compiler, you can declare your interrupt-handling task
to be PASSIVE and drastically reduce the overhead.



-- 
Boris Pelakh		Ada Project Leader          pelakh@convex.com
		     Convex Computer Corporation
"If winning isn't important, why keep score ?"	-- Lt. Worf, Star Trek TNG.