 | | Re: signals / legOS internals
|
|
(...) An ISR can certainly modify data that is used by the executing code. For example, if it doesn't save registers that are used the interrupted code will certainly be affected. In fact, the ISR is of little use if it doesn't modify data that can (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jun-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: signals / legOS internals
|
|
(...) But hardware interrupts schedule a different context (the interrupt process or ISR) from the one already executing. A Unix-style signal asynchronously signal interrupts the executing process and jumps to a different location in the code that (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jun-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: signals / legOS internals
|
|
(...) An asynchronous signal models a hardware interrupt. There are times when that is the appropriate interface. There are times when other interfaces are less error prone and are easier to write correctly. Frequently using only synchronous (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jun-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: signals / legOS internals
|
|
(...) Why signals?!? Unix-style asynchronous signals is the last feature I would ever want to implement or use. Brain-dead and very dangerous "feature". As you write; "The problem is that a signal can happen at any time". You shouldn't pass this (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jun-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: signals / legOS internals
|
|
(...) Actually, gcc moves the stack pointer before using any variables, so it is always safe to use stack below the current stack pointer. If you are using a different C compiler or doing assembly tricks, then you are on your own. (...) Traditional (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jun-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
