Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!unido!rmi!kkaempf
From: kkaempf@rmi.UUCP (Klaus Kaempf)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: IPC: Messages (again)
Message-ID: <962@rmi.UUCP>
Date: 11 Apr 88 13:08:07 GMT
References: <7929@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: kkaempf@rmi.de (Klaus Kaempf)
Organization: RMI Net, Aachen, W.Germany
Lines: 38



In article <7929@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) writes:
> And there IS that mysterious type NT_FREEMSG ... does
> anybody know what that was reserved for? (I inquired at
> BADGE without success.)

void ReplyMsg(mn)
struct Message *mn;
 {
 struct MsgPort *mp;

 if((mp = mn->mn_ReplyPort)) == NULL)
  {
  mn->mn_Node.ln_Type = NT_FREEMSG;
  }
 else
  {
  mn->mn_Node.ln_Type = NT_REPLYMSG;
  (*(PutMsg + SOME_BYTES))(mp, mn); /* argh - don't set ln_Type to NT_MESSAGE */
  }
 }

If a message does not have a reply port associated with it,
it becomes a FreeMsg after being "replied". So there is
nothing mysterious about it, it might be even useful (I must
admit, that - although undocumented - I have used it once!).

Any comments and criticism on releasing such pieces of
information (like the more dangerous WorkBenchBase I posted
some weeks ago) are appreciated.

Prost Mahlzeit!

!ralph

Ralph Babel, Falkenweg 3, D-6204 Taunusstein, FRGermany