Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.programmer:5333 alt.msdos.programmer:2737
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer,alt.msdos.programmer
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!sharkey!tygra!dave
From: dave@tygra.Michigan.COM (David Conrad)
Subject: Re: Notes about Borland C++ interrupt keyword
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing System, Detroit, MI
Date: Mon, 27 May 91 07:04:23 GMT
Message-ID: <1991May27.070423.6524@tygra.Michigan.COM>
References: <1991May20.230908.7178@maytag.waterloo.edu> <00948EEF.C05FAA40@MAPLE.CIRCA.UFL.EDU> <1991May21.195106.1530@watcgl.waterloo.edu>

In article <1991May21.195106.1530@watcgl.waterloo.edu> anicolao@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Alex Nicolaou) writes:
>; for a very simple reason: you aren't the interrupt handler,
>you are being called by it, and you are supposed to be a routine. If you use
>an interrupt function, the BC++ compiler will put an iret instruction in 
>for you, and that will terminate the interrupt handling prematurely
>
>alex

???  You make it sound as if that iret is going to somehow magically return
to the program which generated the interrupt - it'll return to the caller,
i.e. the interrupt handler, but it will pop an extra word off the stack
(looking for the flags), corrupting the caller's stack.

(Of course, the previous message said something about, "I just DON'T use
the interrupt keyword - the documentation is too skimpy."  As if the
interrupt keyword was simply a matter of style, having no consequence in
terms of code generated.  (Sorry, I deleted that part of the article.)
Confusion abounds.)
--
David Conrad, dave@michigan.com
-- 
=  CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Computer Conferencing and File Archive  =
-  1-313-343-0800, 300/1200/2400/9600 baud, 8/N/1. New users use 'new'    - 
=  as a login id.  AVAILABLE VIA PC-PURSUIT!!! (City code "MIDET")        =
   E-MAIL Address: dave@Michigan.COM