This is just my 2p worth...
Rather than try to port something that someone did in an Arduino Sketch on another platform, could you just state what it is you are trying to achieve?
There may well be a way to achieve it which is more suited to the Galileo than using interrupts. The Galileo uses a different processor with different features than other arduino boards. Hareware interrupts are not the same across all platforms, and may not make sense in some situations, as the solution.
Thanks for the reply.
Some degree of compatibility with Arduino was obviously a design goal of the Galileo. Asking if support for interrupts falls within that scope is a fair question. The answer will help people make better choices about when to port vs re-write vs choose a different device entirely.
It sounds like the answer is no in this case. The Galileo does not support interrupts from Arduino sketches.
Is that correct?
The reason I always encourage people to state their aim, rather than ask for a fix is because it helps lead the user to the correct solution.
It's my opinion that simply saying 'no, Galileo does not support pin interrupts' may guide people to the wrong conclusion - that there is no way to achieve whatever it is they are trying to do.
So, no, you can't use simple pin interrupts in Arduino sketches on Galileo - but yes, most likely you can achieve the same (or, who knows maybe even a better) end result. So always state your aim!
Thanks. I don't disagree, but I'd advocate doing both. e.g. Give a straight answer if the answer is in fact no, but also include probing questions and helpful alternative strategies.
I'm personally already aware of the alternatives in my specific case. At this stage, I was aiming to help others avoid the messy task of pouring through multiple posts just to get a simple answer and avoid the frustrating path of trying to make an unsupported feature work. Of course it would be even better if the datasheet and related documentation clearly spelled out this limitation. (it's ambiguous at best)
Thanks again for the clarification. I appreciate it
I can't disagree with you there :-)