Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:03:29 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Martin Czamai <M DOT Czamai AT peak-system DOT com>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: An other question about locking functions in classes
In-Reply-To: <8qsakc$9ak$1@news.germany.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000928080318.12601G-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Martin Czamai wrote:

> The static keyword is necessary to make it possible to lock my_ISR in
> memory, which is required since my_ISR is a interrupt service routine that
> must NOT be swapped out to disk. Currently I receive from the compiler the
> message, that it cannot call a member-function without an object. But I need
> member variables and methods of this class. :-((

Try to split the ISR-related code into two functions: one written in
C, which doesn't access any class members, the other in C++ which does
the rest.  Then you could install only the C function as the interrupt
handler and avoid the complications with C++ restrictions.