Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cbmvax!jesup From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: message ports seeing the future? Message-ID: <22026@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 30 May 91 01:36:59 GMT References: <24436@know.pws.bull.com> <21732@cbmvax.commodore.com> <2726@fornax.UUCP> <21855@cbmvax.commodore.com> Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 24 In article dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes: >In article <21855@cbmvax.commodore.com> jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes: >>>I'm not sure >>>what WaitPort() does with the sigbit but I suspect it does'nt clear it >>>either since it only retrieves the first message. >> >> No, it clears it. (Essentially it's do { Wait(portbit); msg = >>first_message_in_list;} while (!msg); return msg;.) NOTE: WaitPort >>returns a pointer to the first message, but doesn't remove it from the >>port. > > Uh, I don't think you can say that. WaitPort() does this: > Thus, WaitPort() is NOT guarenteed to clear the signal bit. Quite true. I may have misread the question - what I should have said is that WaitPort may clear the signal bit. Please excuse that code, it was written late at night off the cuff. -- Randell Jesup, Jack-of-quite-a-few-trades, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com BIX: rjesup Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion. "No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai