Date:	Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:13:35 +0000 (GMT)
From:	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Isaac_Santaolalla_Sol=F3rzano?= <is05562 AT salleURL DOT edu>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: keyboard handler...
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990208130316.28239B-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.3.96.990208111219.14285B-100000@cygnus.salleURL.edu>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > But then again, with 2 "simple" handlers,
> > will I need to manually deallocate the iret wrapper ? (curiosity only...
> 
> The same considerations as in the case of a single handler apply here.  
> It doesn't mattter how many handlers for different interrupts do you 
> have.

ok...

> > BTW also, the allegro macros LOCK_CODE and LOCK_DATA, are internally
> > calling the _go32 functions lock_code and lock_data ?
> 
> Yes, they do.  But you could easily have established that yourself, by 
> looking at the sources.  That is the beauty of free software, after all.

argh! I had archived them somehwere and the archive now has a CRC error!
I'll have to download them again! :))

> > Reading the info
> > pages about lock functions, it didn't remained clear to me that these
> > functions are intended to avoid swapping, but to ACTUALLY lock them (i.e.
> > no one will be able to touch them...)
> 
> No, locking means that the locked portion of memory cannot be paged out 
> by the virtual memory mechanism.

excellent then... that was what I supposed...

thanks then... bye...
    
    						Isaac Santaolalla
  _________________________________________________________________________
   _______________________________________________________________________
   
    UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
   _______________________________________________________________________

- Raw text -