Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!pyramid!csg
From: csg@pyramid.UUCP (Carl S. Gutekunst)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Interrupt vectors.
Message-ID: <2878@pyramid.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Jun-87 03:42:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyramid.2878
Posted: Fri Jun  5 03:42:58 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jun-87 02:35:11 EDT
References: <7408@boring.cwi.nl>
Reply-To: csg@pyramid.UUCP (Carl S. Gutekunst)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 16

In article <7408@boring.cwi.nl> jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes:
> If you want to handle interrupts in a high-level
>language, you want all interrupts to jump to the same routine, and
>have the interrupt number handy somewhere.

I can't for the life of me see why you'd want this. On the Pyramid, I hand the
address of my interrupt handler to the device. When it needs service, it puts
an interrupt request on the bus; the first available CPU responds by asking
for an interrupt vector; the device then supplies the address of my interrupt
handler. The CPU calls the handler, which then services whatever it was that
the device was interrupting for. The handler is, of course, written in C,
except for four asm() statements that set up the return-from-interrupt. 

What could easier than that?

<csg>