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