From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fe5641bca012dada X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: help about handling interrupts Date: 1998/04/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 341715575 References: <3528B9E0.6F0F@bipa162.bi.ehu.es> <3529047A.44EE08B8@cl.cam.ac.uk> X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 891959430 28795 (None) 128.122.140.58 Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-04-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Matthew says <<>User processes cannot directly handle interrupts under Linux. >If you want to write an interrupt handler yourself, you have to >do this in a loadable kernel module. You can write loadable kernel >modules in Ada just like you can do this in C. You have to call a >kernel function at module load time that registers your Ada >procedure as an interrupt handler, and then the Linux kernel >will call your Ada procedure whenever this interrupt comes in. I don't understand this response. In Ada 95, you attach protected procedure of a protected object to an interrupt. Section 19.6, INTERRUPT HANDLING, in Norm Cohen's book is dedicated to this very topic. No, the OS doesn't make any difference. The syntax for specifying an >> And I don't understand Matthew's response. If you take the attitude that an interrupt in the RM really means an interrupt (as opposed to some kind of operating system signal), then it is perfectly legitimate to reject all attempts at attaching interrupt handlers on a system which does not allow you to define an interrupt routine in the environment in which you are trying to compile (e.g. user mode on NT or Unix).