Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!samsung!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!nstn.ns.ca!cs.dal.ca!ug.cs.dal.ca!dewolfe
From: dewolfe@ug.cs.dal.ca (Anarchy for Peace)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: Launch and Switch Fields in the Task Structure
Keywords: multitasking launch switch system programming
Message-ID: <1991Mar29.194508.3712@cs.dal.ca>
Date: 29 Mar 91 19:45:08 GMT
References: <17933@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <93@hdwr1.medar.com>
Sender: news@cs.dal.ca (USENET News)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Lines: 29
Nntp-Posting-Host: ug.cs.dal.ca

In article <93@hdwr1.medar.com> jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour) writes:
>In article <17933@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> barnettj@pookie.crd.ge.com (Janet A Barnett) writes:
>>                                        ... The SAS/C compiler manual
>>warns against this, indicating that the operating system does not
>>properly handle sharing of the coprocessor between tasks.  ...
>
>Huh?  Whoa, I hadn't caught that in my SAS/C docs.  Is this true CBM guys?
>If so, what's the problem?  If so, does this apply equally to 2.0?  Or
>should I just be careful with stuff I plan to make compatable with 1.3
>systems?
>
I'm not a commodore guy, but my Lattice (5.04) manual says that some 3rd
party accelerator boards don't correctly tie into the task launch/switch signals
for task switching.  They then go on to say that the Commodore boards do
conform and are fine.

It has nothing to do with the OS.

"It's a hardware problem." says the software person.

>-- 
>Jim Seymour				| Medar, Inc.
>...!uunet!medar!jseymour		| 38700 Grand River Ave.
>jseymour@medar.com			| Farmington Hills, MI. 48331
>CIS: 72730,1166  GEnie: jseymour	| FAX: (313)477-8897

--
Colin DeWolfe
dewolfe@ug.cs.dal.ca