Xref: utzoo comp.sys.m68k:644 comp.sys.mac:10100
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!cuuxb!mmengel
From: mmengel@cuuxb.ATT.COM (Marc W. Mengel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: I've heard of disclaimers but this is ridiculous
Message-ID: <1434@cuuxb.ATT.COM>
Date: 16 Dec 87 20:13:31 GMT
References: <7006@apple.UUCP>
Reply-To: mmengel@cuuxb.UUCP (Marc W. Mengel)
Organization: AT&T-DSD, System Engineering for Resellers, Lisle IL
Lines: 24
Keywords: stack frames

In article <7006@apple.UUCP> jk@apple.UUCP (John Kullmann) writes:
>	"The system software should not depend on a particular
>	 exception generating a particular stack frame. For compatibility 
>	 with future devices, the software should be able to handle 
>	 any type of stack frame for any type of exception."
>
>HELLO?? WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN????  
>Seems just a bit "too" general for me.  Isn't it a bit late in the game 
>to publish such a general disclaimer on the part now??!?!! Does this mean
...
>Does this mean something to anyone? Am I on drugs? Or what?

I think what they mean is that your interrupt routine should alwas accept
any of the 4 or 5 standard interrupt frames by checking the type field
in the frame to see which format it is -- i.e. if you get a illegal
instruction fault, you *could* get any of the legal stack frames, and
if you want to know which one you got you have to look at the type
nybble in the stack frame.

-- 
 Marc Mengel	

 attmail!mmengel
 ...!{moss|lll-crg|mtune|ihnp4}!cuuxb!mmengel