dana.holt@raider.MFEE.TN.US (11/25/88)
This reply is directed toward the cooment you made about the Atari ST
inability to survive a ^C in any of the built-in input functions. Well, this
message is to set that straight. I do assembly,Pascal,and 'C' on an ST and
there are built-in functions (in the OS) to allow for input which will ignore
the ^C keys. If you are stupid enough to write a trap handler to fix the ^C
problem I feel sorry for you. I can write a piece of assembler off the top of
my head to do that:
m
start:
move.w #$ff,-(sp) ; Function value to test keyboard
move.w #6,-(sp) ; function number
trap #1 ; call GEMDOS
addq.l #4,sp ; correct stack
tst.w d0 ; char arrived?
beq start ; not yet
cmp.b #3,d0 ; is it a ^C
beq END ; if so then end if not go on
move d0,-(sp) character for putput on the stack
move #6,-(sp) ; function
trap #1 ; call GEMDOS
addq.l #4,sp
bra start ; get new char
end:
clr.w -(sp) ; clear stack
trap #1 ; call GEMDOS $00 (TERM) to exit
(end assembly)
That is off the top of my head. I magine what you could do with some
time and planning. That was using GEMDOS function $06 which is not the best but
it is the first that comes to mind as I do not have a list at this time..
|||
|||
//|\\
---------
% ATARI %
---------
Dana Holt
Rt.5 Box 119
M'boro, Tn 37130
VOICE: 615-896-5668
DATA : 615-896-6254
' Amiga? What the hell is an Amiga? '
- MEpeter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/27/88)
In article <36@raider.MFEE.TN.US>, dana.holt@raider.MFEE.TN.US seems to be talking to me... > This reply is directed toward the cooment you made about the Atari ST > inability to survive a ^C in any of the built-in input functions. No, I said that there is no way of surviving ^C using the standard I/O functions. That is, the UNIX-style file routines directed at the console device. > Well, this > message is to set that straight. I do assembly,Pascal,and 'C' on an ST and > there are built-in functions (in the OS) to allow for input which will ignore > the ^C keys. Yes, but as soon as you call printf() you're a dead puppy. > If you are stupid enough to write a trap handler to fix the ^C > problem I feel sorry for you. I can write a piece of assembler off the top of > my head to do that: And if I wanted to write assembly language and busy-wait to do something as simple as this I'd have stuck with an IBM-PC. > ' Amiga? What the hell is an Amiga? ' Simply the only personal computer on the market with a modern operating system as the standard user environment. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today? Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn busines#!rne
martens@lyre.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) (11/28/88)
This may be of interest to those with STs, but what does it have to do with the Amiga? -- Jeff
dana.holt@raider.MFEE.TN.US (11/30/88)
I was simply making a reply to someone that was talking about ST
PROGRAMMING..
Dana
Dana Holt
Box 119
Rt5
Murfreesboro, Tn
37130
VOICE: 615-896-5668
DATA : 615-896-6254crewman@bucsb.UUCP (11/30/88)
In article <3028@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <36@raider.MFEE.TN.US>, dana.holt@raider.MFEE.TN.US seems to >> This reply is directed toward the cooment you made about the Atari ST >> inability to survive a ^C in any of the built-in input functions. > >No, I said that there is no way of surviving ^C using the standard I/O >functions. That is, the UNIX-style file routines directed at the console >device. > Is that supposed to be undesirable? After all, as you say yourself, these are UNIX-style routines which act just like UNIX does in case of ^C. These routines are there for the console device - a text-based shell, not some fancy graphics-based input filter. It's not that there is no way to survive ^C; the ^C exit was put in deliberately to resemble UNIX! > >Yes, but as soon as you call printf() you're a dead puppy. > Don't use printf(). Use sprintf() followed by one of the ROM string output routines. Again, printf() works just like it should -- just like in UNIX. > >> 'Amiga!? What the hell is an Amiga?' > >Simply the only personal computer on the market with a modern operating system >as the standard user environment. > This must be a joke. I have an Amiga, an ST, and I use Macs and PC's at work, among others, and I have come to realize this: I prefer *ancient* UNIX on my Sun 3/50 at work to the toy OS on my Amiga anyday! I even like the ST OS better than the Amiga's. It's simple, it has all the graphics one needs, and it's compatible with MS/DOS. What the hell is a modern operating system? How long does an OS stay modern? -- JJS
dillon@POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (11/30/88)
Before Pete comes on with a huge flame against you, because in this case he would be completely justified, I would like to give you a medium flame (to prepare you for Pete's flame which will no doubt occur the moment he reads the message, eh? (-:). What you are saying below in your response is, essentially, that if a person wants to disable break he cannot perform certain useful system calls and library functions on the ST because they catch ^C and kill the program. You say that this is not necessarily a bad thing. (1) ?!?!@ Hogwash. That makes no sense at all. And, since you are so fond of quoting UNIX, I would like to point out that it is a very simple matter to disable INTR (^C) .. a single line of C in fact on UNIX systems. (2) I was under the impression that you could disable ^C for these functions on the Atari. Anybody know for sure? (3) I mean, your response *really* makes no sense at all.. just read it over again! Give me a break! -Matt From: crewman@bucsb.UUCP -- JJS Writes: :In article <3028@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: :>In article <36@raider.MFEE.TN.US>, dana.holt@raider.MFEE.TN.US seems to :>> This reply is directed toward the cooment you made about the Atari ST :>> inability to survive a ^C in any of the built-in input functions. :> :>No, I said that there is no way of surviving ^C using the standard I/O :>functions. That is, the UNIX-style file routines directed at the console :>device. :> : :Is that supposed to be undesirable? After all, as you say yourself, these are :UNIX-style routines which act just like UNIX does in case of ^C. These :routines are there for the console device - a text-based shell, not some :fancy graphics-based input filter. It's not that there is no way to survive :^C; the ^C exit was put in deliberately to resemble UNIX! : :> :>Yes, but as soon as you call printf() you're a dead puppy. :> : :Don't use printf(). Use sprintf() followed by one of the ROM string output :routines. Again, printf() works just like it should -- just like in UNIX. One last comment: Don't use printf() ???? THAT IS YOUR SOLUTION??! Great, Just what I needed to hear. What? Oh yah, I was going to keep this a medium flame ... -Matt
martens@dinghy.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) (11/30/88)
In article <2231@bucsb.UUCP> crewman@bucsb.UUCP writes: >In article <3028@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >>In article <36@raider.MFEE.TN.US>, dana.holt@raider.MFEE.TN.US seems to [lotsa stuff tossed out] >>> 'Amiga!? What the hell is an Amiga?' >> >>Simply the only personal computer on the market with a modern operating system >>as the standard user environment. >> > >This must be a joke. I have an Amiga, an ST, and I use Macs and PC's at work, >among others, and I have come to realize this: I prefer *ancient* UNIX on my >Sun 3/50 at work to the toy OS on my Amiga anyday! I even like the ST OS >better than the Amiga's. It's simple, it has all the graphics one needs, and >it's compatible with MS/DOS. What the hell is a modern operating system? How >long does an OS stay modern? > > -- JJS I doubt it was meant to be a joke, but rather a harmless exaggeration. I myself have an Amiga and a Kaypro, and use Macs and Suns at work and have used PCs a lot in the past. Whether AmigaDOS is modern is debateable, and, all-in-all I probably do prefer Unix to AmigaDOS, but my Amiga multitasks, which is something VERY important to me that Mac and ST afficionados can't claim for their machines, and PC people couldn't claim until fairly recently (I really am not up-to-date with MS-DOS developments :-). Also, the Amiga gives me a whole lot more flexibility than the Mac, simply by virtue of the CLI. AmigaDOS isn't perfect, and some people may not like it, but it is a fairly unique offering on an affordable machine. -- Jeff
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/30/88)
In article <2231@bucsb.UUCP>, crewman@bucsb.UUCP writes: > In article <3028@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >In article <36@raider.MFEE.TN.US>, dana.holt@raider.MFEE.TN.US seems to > >> This reply is directed toward the cooment you made about the Atari ST > >> inability to survive a ^C in any of the built-in input functions. > >No, I said that there is no way of surviving ^C using the standard I/O > >functions. That is, the UNIX-style file routines directed at the console > >device. > Is that supposed to be undesirable? After all, as you say yourself, these are > UNIX-style routines which act just like UNIX does in case of ^C. They act like UNIX does on a ^C? As shipped, UNIX ignores ^C... DEL is the default interrupt character. Strike one: you can't change ^C. In UNIX a program can easily tell the system to ignore or let you catch the interrupt character. In a high level language. Strikes two and three: you can't ignore it and to catch it you have to write an assembly interrupt routine. In UNIX you can even turn interrupt processing off globally. Strike four. What sort of crazy game is this anyway? > These > routines are there for the console device - a text-based shell, not some > fancy graphics-based input filter. The console device is a simple terminal emulator. There is no text-based shell delivered with the ST at all. At the time, there wasn't one available for third parties. That was what I was trying to write. > It's not that there is no way to survive > ^C; the ^C exit was put in deliberately to resemble UNIX! The ^C handling is put in deliberately to resemble MS-DOS, actually. What they call the "UNIX-style" calls are actually bug-for-bug compatible with what Microsoft calls the "UNIX-style" calls in MS-DOS. The major difference between MS-DOS and TOS is that in MS-DOS you can disable ^C, and there's a shell (COMMAND.COM) shipped with the thing. > >Yes, but as soon as you call printf() you're a dead puppy. > Don't use printf(). Use sprintf() followed by one of the ROM string output > routines. This sounds like that joke... "Doctor, it hurts when I do this" "So don't do that". Sorry, doc, I need to be able to do that. > Again, printf() works just like it should -- just like in UNIX. Again, this is complete BS. > >> 'Amiga!? What the hell is an Amiga?' > >Simply the only personal computer on the market with a modern operating > >system as the standard user environment. > This must be a joke. I have a [bunch of computers and] I prefer *ancient* > UNIX on my Sun 3/50 at work to the toy OS on my Amiga anyday! Well, UNIX is a modern operating system. MS-DOS, MacOS, and TOS are simple program loaders and file servers that would be quite up-to-date in the early '60s. TOS has a decent graphics library, and the Mac's toolkit is the best graphics library for pixel-based graphics I've seen... but there's nothing but dust, cobwebs, and an old '60s style monitor underneath them. > I even like the ST OS better than the Amiga's. It's simple, it has all the > graphics one needs, and it's compatible with MS/DOS. No scheduler, no shell, no virtual devices, won't run on a 68020,... simple, yes. Compatibility with MS-DOS is a major count against it. > What the hell is a modern operating system? I don't have Douglas Comer's XINU book here. I'd suggest you have a look at it... it's got the best description of what a modern operating system is, and what it is not, that I've ever seen. Basically a modern operating system consists of a small number of functional parts: a scheduler, a file system, a program loader, a memory manager, and a device manager. Each of these parts can be considered a resource manager, where a resource is something like CPU time (scheduler) or disk space (file system) that the manager administers. Since the book, an additional resource... the display... has become a fairly common subsystem. Without multitasking, though, windowing is a fairly useless tool. > How long does an OS stay modern? Some never make it in the first place. I guess you could say "until the point where it's missing major subsystems that have become common". CP/M and its derivitives don't rate. Microsoft Windows is a very good attempt, though. It's a pity it's suffering so badly from politics. Multifinder... well... the less I say of THAT the better. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today? Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn busines#!rne
mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) (12/01/88)
crewman@bucsb.UUCP writes: > This must be a joke. I have an Amiga, an ST, and I use Macs and PC's at work, > among others, and I have come to realize this: I prefer *ancient* UNIX on my > Sun 3/50 at work to the toy OS on my Amiga anyday! I even like the ST OS > better than the Amiga's. It's simple, it has all the graphics one needs, and > it's compatible with MS/DOS. What the hell is a modern operating system? How > long does an OS stay modern? > > -- JJS Get out of this newsgroup. You're begging for a flame war. -- Michael Portuesi / Information Technology Center / Carnegie Mellon University INET: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu / BITNET: mp1u+%andrew.cmu.edu@cmccvb UUCP: ...harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!mp1u+ "my friends say she's a dumb blonde, but they don't know she dyes her hair"
space@sns.UUCP (Lars Soltau) (12/05/88)
In article <3036@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: [lotsa text deleted] >As shipped, UNIX ignores ^C... DEL is the default interrupt character. Well, only if you regard AT&T Unix as "*the* Unix". BSD has ^C as its default interrupt character. >Since the book, an additional resource... the display... has become a fairly >common subsystem. Without multitasking, though, windowing is a fairly useless >tool. I'd even go so far as to say that multitasking without windows doesn't make me very happy any more, either. Unless it has at least the BSD job control. You know, ^Z and so on. Boy, am I lucky that I have both. :-) -- Lars Soltau UUCP: ...uunet!unido!sns!space BIX: -- no bucks -- Here's looking at you, kid! -- the Medusa