|
|
Wow!
Further comments not safe for the Lounge
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose we run two programs on a single-core processor
First sets the EIP pointer to 2 (example)and the second one sets it to 1
How does the first program know it will continue from adress 2 and not 1 ?
Thank you very much
(random fact: Pink Floyd's wish you were here was written not for someone who died ,but for an ex member who went insane)
|
|
|
|
|
You are in the wrong place! We sold all our EIP's for food...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
So after the sale did the EIP's point to the first thing that you, or the byuer will do next?
|
|
|
|
|
Me of course! Buyer do not know about computers - he thinks EIP is some innovation think...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Bacon to be more precise 
With friendly greetings, 
Eric Goedhart
|
|
|
|
|
Each program runs in its own address and activity space, totally isolated from the other. As one is pre-empted, its environment, including registers, is saved and then restored when it gets its next timeslice.
|
|
|
|
|
So far 45 minutes have elapsed and nobody has suggested your answer is incomplete or theirs is better. I vote we move Q&A to the Lounge and post drivel in Q&A.
All in favor raise your hands...
|
|
|
|
|
S u n s h i n e wrote: post drivel in Q&A
Where's the change in that? 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Random random fact: While recording Wish You Were Here, the same former member wandered into the recording and none of the band recognised him.
|
|
|
|
|
FALSE
One of them did
I think it was Waters
He asked him what does he think of the album and he replied...well i dont exactly remember but it was something negative !
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to correct you - albeit slightly - but I was referring to the initial entry of Barrett. In a later interview, Richard Wright said:
"One thing that really stands out in my mind, that I’ll never forget; I was going in to the the Shine On sessions. I went in the studio and I saw this guy sitting at the back of the studio, he was only as far away as you are from me. And I didn’t recognise him. I said, ‘Who’s that guy behind you?’ ‘That’s Syd.’ And I just cracked up, I couldn’t believe it… he had shaven all his hair off… I mean, his eyebrows, everything… he was jumping up and down brushing his teeth, it was awful. And, uh, I was in, I mean Roger was in tears, I think I was; we were both in tears. It was very shocking… seven years of no contact and then to walk in while we’re actually doing that particular track. I don’t know – coincidence, karma, fate, who knows? But it was very, very, very powerful.”
Waters described the meeting as:
“I had no idea who he was for a very long time.”
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously it can't work that way, precisely because of the reason you give. So why is this even a question?
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: So why is this even a question?
Not everyone understands how a multi-tasking operating system works. Certainly plenty of "developers" in Q&A would seem not to.
|
|
|
|
|
Even though they may not know how it works, it should be immediately obvious that the way OP implied it might work is definitely impossible, especially since OP gave an argument for why that is so.
If you prove something can't work, then obviously it doesn't work that way.
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: it should be immediately obvious
Yes, but only if you have an undestanding of how an OS works, which is not always obvious to students, and others who are learning.
|
|
|
|
|
No. I'm not saying it should be obvious how a multi tasking OS works.
I'm saying that it should be obvious that if you disprove a theory, that means it's wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Only if you think scientifically.
"Intelligent Design" has it's adherents, despite being a load of old cobblers...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: Not everyone understands how a multi-tasking operating system anything related to a computer works. Certainly plenty of "developers" in Q&A would seem not to
FTFY!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I didn't want to say that.
|
|
|
|
|
And I wish it wasn't true...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: "developers" in Q&A
A rare beast...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
