Re: Interrupt Handler Problems

[claveman@cod.nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson)]

In article <7m177r$9e$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Robert Dewar  <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <1999Jul7.160434.10447@nosc.mil>,
>  claveman@cod.nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson) wrote:
>>      We're having a terrible time getting our code running in
>the new
>> environment.  The killer problem of the moment is interrupt
>handlers.
>> (We have a lot of them.)  Our handlers have been modified into
>protected
>> procedures, as required by Green Hills
>
>
>Why not use a technology that provides compatible handling
>of interrupts, avoiding the need for these modifications?

     All right, Robert, I'm not as offended by your harmless plug for 
GNAT as others might be.  The answer to your quasi-rhetorical question 
is: time to market.  At the time when we had to make our compiler deci-
sion GNAT wasn't supporting our environment.  I know that it is now and 
it's very definitely being kept in mind as a possible fall-back.

     I must say that having to rework the interrupt handlers, while not 
onerous, was something of a shock.  I had just assumed that all vendors 
would support the obsolescent features, so much so that we didn't bother 
to ask during the vendor demos.  Our planned approach was to get every-
thing executing while using the old, task entry, interrupt handlers and 
later revise them into protected procedures.  The idea, of course, was 
to change the code as little as possible while doing the actual port.  
Since the rewrite was forced on us, we now have another factor to con-
sider when attacking our problem.

				Charlie
--
******

     For an email response, my user name is "sampson" and my host
is "spawar.navy.mil".