Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 10:43:52 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Paolo Gava <pgava AT etrone DOT com DOT au>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: critical section again
In-Reply-To: <Tf%M3.174$Po4.5800@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991014104313.26124I-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Paolo Gava wrote:

> When I call sys_call() the interrupt should be disable, but when I print
> ulCount, I see that it is increased.

I think that's because your timer handler enables the interrupts:

>    popal
>    popw %gs
>    popw %fs
>    popw %es
>    popw %ds
> 
>    sti
>    iret

If you are counting on the fact that once you call disable() your
handler won't be called at all, don't: Windows has its own ideas about
that...