Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!well!ewhac
From: ewhac@well.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: How much of the console.device do I need to close?
Message-ID: <3213@well.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Jun-87 19:03:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: well.3213
Posted: Wed Jun  3 19:03:40 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jun-87 06:10:22 EDT
References: <8706012228.AA20376@violet.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 50
Summary: Yet another suggestion...

In article <8706012228.AA20376@violet.berkeley.edu> mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike  Meyer, My watch has windows) writes:
>The continueing saga of the quest for the re-openable console window.
>
>In our last episode, Carolyn Scheppner had suggested:
>
>>>   Haven't done it myself but my guess is that your failure to Remove the
>>> initial request is causing the problems.  I suggest trying the same code
>>> used for aborting and removing an asynchronous printer request:
>
>This was done. In fact, the code tried was:  [ Code deleted ]
>
>This has the exact same problems mentioned before: the last character
>typed before the window open/close shows up in the input queue.
>
>Anyone got any ideas?
>
	Try this:

	AbortIO (ConsoleRead);
	WaitIO (ConsoleRead);
	Wait (1L << ConsoleRead -> io_Message -> mn_ReplyPort -> mp_SigBit);

	When I was writing Robotroff, there were occasions that I would need
to AbortIO() a timer request so I could reconfigure things.  I AbortIO()ed,
then WaitIO()ed.  I flushed it, right?

	Apparently not.  I would keep getting this phantom signal that
Wait() would respond to.  I surmised that the AbortIO() posted a reply to
your reply port, raising a signal bit.  WaitIO() apparently then checks to
see if the queue has anything.  If so, it grabs it right away, and doesn't
bother to clear the signal bit.  So you still have an outstanding signal
pending to your task... er.. process... er.. whatever.  The above convoluted
Wait() statement will clear it.

	I suspect that, when you post the new request, then wait for it, the
old signal somehow gets in and fouls things up.

	If CATS would like the code that created this condition, I'm sure I
could hack something together.

	Be warned, however, that I have a sneaking suspicion that the above
hack has a very low probability of working for you....

	Good luck.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape	ihnp4!ptsfa -\
 \_ -_	 Bike shrunk by popular demand,	      dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac
O----^o	 But it's still the only way to fly.  hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack")
"Work FOR?  I don't work FOR anybody!  I'm just having fun."  -- The Doctor