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: 103376,5c89fe49fff7f5b8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: IRQs and interrupt handlers under Win95 Date: 1998/05/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 355359116 References: <356307C7.D18D062@cl.cam.ac.uk> <6k1rq4$58t@top.mitre.org> X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 895786381 12669 (None) 128.122.140.58 Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-05-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Michael said <> Yes, well I am sure there are people who think it is a shame that we are still not programming in absolute, but the fact is that a modern operating system is in the business of controlling the sharing of resources, and you can't let people just blunder in and seize control of "the basic input and output of our machines". When cars first appeared, it must have seemed wonderful to be able to go wherever you wanted, and no doubt people felt it was "really a shame" when traffic cops appeared :-) <> Nothing unfortunate about this at all, any attempt to standardize this would be doomed to failure because of substantial differences at the hardware level in the way interrupt systems behave (even if you stay within the PC family, and your suggestion above seems to want to wander outside those constraints)