home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: asterix.urc.tue.nl!buex95a
- From: buex95a@asterix.urc.tue.nl (Marcel van Kervinck)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: Amiga Memory Map Needed!!!
- Date: 6 Feb 1996 15:19:28 GMT
- Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
- Message-ID: <4f7ri0$o4@tuegate.tue.nl>
- References: <4dl0pe$1jr0@serra.unipi.it> <13213494@sourcery.han.de> <4eo1s9$im3@tuegate.tue.nl> <4eogof$f3n@serpens.rhein.de>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: asterix.urc.tue.nl
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
-
- Michael van Elst (mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de) wrote:
- : buex95a@asterix.urc.tue.nl (Marcel van Kervinck) writes:
-
- : >BTW: Why doesn't anyone wonder why there is need for execbase
- : >to be located in a fixed address at all?
-
- : ExecBase needs to be found from within an interrupt. The only
- : information passed to an interrupt is the new program counter
- : and a couple of supervisor registers. The only register that
- : _could_ hold some information would be the supervisor stack.
- : But it is much work to reliably retrieve a pointer from a stack
- : with unknown data already pushed to it. Reading a pointer from
- : an absolute address is much easier, won't you think ?
-
- True, but interrupt programming is something that should be hidden
- in the os. No application needs to know about interrupts, I think.
- So it's allright if internally the os uses absolute addresses, but
- there is no need to make anything external rely on them. Or even
- know about them.
-
- Marcel
- -- _ _
- _| |_|_|
- |_ |_ Marcel van Kervinck
- |_| buex95a@urc.tue.nl
-