Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:05:09 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Mark Phillips <umphill5 AT cs DOT umanitoba DOT ca>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: another interrupt question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.990526103652.17102A-100000@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990527110314.9561U-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 26 May 1999, Mark Phillips wrote:

> if you write an interrupt routine, can you get around locking the
> functions it calls by declaring them as inline?

No.  Declaring functions inline will just spill their code into the 
calling function's code, but it still needs to be locked.  And if the 
problem is with library functions, you cannot make them inline by a 
declaration, since their code is in the library in binary form, not in 
source form.