delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Thu, 27 May 1999 11:05:09 +0300 (IDT) |
From: | Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> |
X-Sender: | eliz AT is |
To: | Mark Phillips <umphill5 AT cs DOT umanitoba DOT ca> |
cc: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
Subject: | Re: another interrupt question |
In-Reply-To: | <Pine.SUN.3.96.990526103652.17102A-100000@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca> |
Message-ID: | <Pine.SUN.3.91.990527110314.9561U-100000@is> |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
On Wed, 26 May 1999, Mark Phillips wrote: > if you write an interrupt routine, can you get around locking the > functions it calls by declaring them as inline? No. Declaring functions inline will just spill their code into the calling function's code, but it still needs to be locked. And if the problem is with library functions, you cannot make them inline by a declaration, since their code is in the library in binary form, not in source form.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |