Multitasking using interrupt

[Ian Rogers]

Can anyone explain this line of code for me?

Its just a way to place a dot on the buffer screen... or and and xor

 

[Mikebits]

Just responding to the original post, would not an interrupt imply non-multitasking? In my thinking multitasking is two simultaneous operations without interruption...

 

[nsaspook]

Just responding to the original post, would not an interrupt imply non-multitasking? In my thinking multitasking is two simultaneous operations without interruption...

No, multitasking doesn't have to be simultaneous but it usually means the tasks are autonomous with their own resources, memory and address space (a process) on one or more cpu's with an executive program managing the physical shared resources for them. What's commonly seem in controllers is actually closer to multi-threaded where programs share resources, memory and address space but have difference threads of execution in it. Hardware modules in a controller can be seen as a co-processors of those threads. You have have multitasking processes without full virtual-machine hardware (using traps to emulate the full user level machine) but it's much more elegant with it.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Just responding to the original post, would not an interrupt imply non-multitasking? In my thinking multitasking is two simultaneous operations without interruption...

You think wrongly then

 

[Mikebits]

Well Nigel, I see it this way. People have often claimed to be able to multi-task, while in reality these people are only using time division multiplexing, and this has been proven by scientist using MRI imaging. Now I did post my comment facetiously, but since you flat stated I am wrong, I feel compelled to reply. Multi-tasking by definition is the ability to perform two or more task at one time, and by this definition, if an interrupt is asserted to the main control function eg. a microprocessor, to halt one operation to perform another, then I claim it is not multi-tasking but rather it is using time division. I am still sort of being smarty pantsy...

 

[nsaspook]

Well Nigel, I see it this way. People have often claimed to be able to multi-task, while in reality these people are only using time division multiplexing, and this has been proven by scientist using MRI imaging. Now I did post my comment facetiously, but since you flat stated I am wrong, I feel compelled to reply. Multi-tasking by definition is the ability to perform two or more task at one time, and by this definition, if an interrupt is asserted to the main control function eg. a microprocessor, to halt one operation to perform another, then I claim it is not multi-tasking but rather it is using time division. I am still sort of being smarty pantsy...

First I would say that Functional MRI says nothing directly about the brains mental operation, it shows how and where blood is flowing in your brain by detection of EM energy. We can infer these are the sites of activity but we still have no clue about how the brain operates at the functional task level.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201102/mris-the-new-phrenology

I agree just an interrupt task is not multi-tasking but time division does not exclude multi-tasking and is normally included in multi-tasking systems to increase the number of possible true multi-tasking processes.