|
|
 | | Re: Aborting from ISR
|
| Hi, (...) Yup, that does what I want, although I can't remember enough about forth internals to work out why it works. But it does seem to depend on the return stack having a particular structure, so I do wonder - what happens if the interrupt (...) (22 years ago, 20-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | | | RE: Aborting from ISR
|
| (...) Alex, I'll have a good look at this and then post an article. I have a funny feeling you're doing it the hard way, but that's because I know the insides of the patient better than you do - I am Dr Frankenforth after all! Oh, and sorry for the (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | | | RE: Lazy newbieish question
|
| (...) Matt, I see this all the time when I teach embedded C programming to desktop guys - it's an objectification of things at the wrong level. Maybe you could consider this: (setup-light-sensor 'PORT2) which expands to 3 1 SENSOR_TYPE 128 1 (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | | | Lazy newbieish question
|
| If I wasn't in a hurry with so many things to do in the next two days, I would figure this out for myself. My apologies for such a simple question. We're wrapping a lot sensor input stuff at a higher level of abstraction than the raw pbForth words. (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | | | Re: Aborting from ISR
|
| It works! (after countless crashes and firmwire reloads that is ... :) By modifying the saved Instruction Pointer to point to a memory area which in turn contains the address of an "abort word", on the next execution of a word (either inside a (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
|
