On Jan 5, 2015, at 5:27 AM, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>>>> An interrupt request on a microprocessor is usually responded to
>=20

> In most cases problem is not in the question but in the answers.

In this case, I don't think the question is very good, either.  I'm surpris=
ed that no one has complained about "responded to" being ambiguous.


> On most chips a) is definitely wrong: an interupt is handled after=20
> *each* instruction. You can of course argue that "within several=20
> instruction times" is included within "after each instruction"

I certainly intended "within" to be interpreted that way.
We can probably add "native language issues" to the list of problems with t=
his sort of testing.  It is easy to forget that there are common phrases in=
 English that may not be as common, or as easily translatable, as we think.=
  "Several", "Usually", "Within"=85

I want the test-ee to understand that a microprocessor interrupt is pretty =
much an "immediate" thing that happens very quickly compared to the executi=
on speed of the processor.  As opposed to, say, an OS callback for io compl=
ete or packet reception, which can take seconds after you "ask" for it.  Al=
so lumped into this question was context of "modern microcontroller things =
usually happen at sub-microsecond timings" and "microcontrollers are always=
 doing something; they're never "not busy."  Both of which are arguable, es=
pecially in low-power applications.

BillW


--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.