Re: protected type interrupts
- From: "REH" <me@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 23:17:20 GMT
"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bvJHg.152959$1i1.59895@xxxxxxxxxxxx
It's not my assumption. It IS being executing by the handler, and the
Right. I said that in another message, IIRC. The message you were replying
to was mostly nit picking, correcting the OP's assumption that the entry
was being executed BY the interrupt handler.
compiler vender says the LRM allows them to do so. References to LRM given
here show they are correct. My assumption (that was proven incorrect) was
that it should been executed by the task that called it. The standard
states that this cannot be relied upon (which explains why you cannot call
"current_task" from an entry).
REH
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: protected type interrupts
- From: Jeffrey R. Carter
- Re: protected type interrupts
- References:
- protected type interrupts
- From: REH
- Re: protected type interrupts
- From: Jeffrey R. Carter
- Re: protected type interrupts
- From: Jean-Pierre Rosen
- Re: protected type interrupts
- From: Jeffrey R. Carter
- protected type interrupts
- Prev by Date: Re: protected type interrupts
- Next by Date: Re: protected type interrupts
- Previous by thread: Re: protected type interrupts
- Next by thread: Re: protected type interrupts
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|