Date:	Wed, 13 Sep 95 08:44 MDT
From:	mat AT ardi DOT com (Mat Hostetter)
To:	Cuthalion / Sliced Bread <enrico AT max DOT tiac DOT net>
Cc:	Paul <digisoft AT eis DOT net DOT au>, djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Subject:	Re: interrupt stops being invoked
References:	<m0ssXci-000GVCC AT gwar DOT ardi DOT com> <Pine DOT NEB DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 950912231751 DOT 6729B-100000 AT max DOT tiac DOT net>

>>>>> "Sliced" == Sliced Bread <Cuthalion> writes:

    Sliced> 	You can _DO_ That?  (Successfully, I mean?)  Wow!  I
    Sliced> would have expected the compiler to outsmart me somehow
    Sliced> and put things in a different order or something.

gcc seems to generate non-static functions in order.  If this hack
makes you nervous (and it should), you can always throw in some
asserts that verify that the functions to be locked are between the
interrupt_start and interrupt_end addresses.

NOTE: this hack will NOT work for variables inserted between the start
and end addresses; you need to lock those separately.  Of course,
that's easy since you have their address and size.

-Mat

- Raw text -