From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 23 Feb 93 21:30:56 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!news.oc.com!convex! pelakh@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Boris Pelakh) Subject: Re: Interrupts Message-ID: <1993Feb23.213056.14392@news.eng.convex.com> List-Id: In article 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.