Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:06:27 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Isaac_Santaolalla_Sol=F3rzano?= <is05562 AT salleURL DOT edu>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: keyboard handler...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990208102507.13526A-100000@cygnus.salleURL.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990208130316.28239B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Isaac_Santaolalla_Sol=F3rzano?= wrote:

> But then again, with 2 "simple" handlers,
> will I need to manually deallocate the iret wrapper ? (curiosity only...

The same considerations as in the case of a single handler apply here.  
It doesn't mattter how many handlers for different interrupts do you 
have.

> BTW also, the allegro macros LOCK_CODE and LOCK_DATA, are internally
> calling the _go32 functions lock_code and lock_data ?

Yes, they do.  But you could easily have established that yourself, by 
looking at the sources.  That is the beauty of free software, after all.

> Reading the info
> pages about lock functions, it didn't remained clear to me that these
> functions are intended to avoid swapping, but to ACTUALLY lock them (i.e.
> no one will be able to touch them...)

No, locking means that the locked portion of memory cannot be paged out 
by the virtual memory mechanism.