Date:	Fri, 5 May 2000 14:25:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id:	<200005051825.OAA05733@indy.delorie.com>
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To:	tdu AT enter DOT net (Tim Updegrove)
CC:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<391222c5.362265@news.enter.net> (tdu@enter.net)
Subject:	Re: uclock erratic
References:	<3910c80d DOT 139960 AT news DOT enter DOT net> <391222c5 DOT 362265 AT news DOT enter DOT net>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> From: tdu AT enter DOT net (Tim Updegrove)
> Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 01:34:52 GMT
> 
> will uclock be reliable in Windows 98 SE?

To the best of my knowledge, `uclock' works on Windows 9X, although I
never tested it on Windows 98 SE specifically.  Some of the
improvements that went into DJGPP v2.03 especially targeted Windows 9X
idiosyncrasies related to reprogramming the system timer.

> If no, is clock() reliable in Windows 98 SE?

`clock' should work reliably on Windows, but it has much lower
resolution.

> Lastly, I'm using uclock() to provide a delay or wait function.  I
> just noticed usleep() in the archives last night.  Should I be using
> this function instead of uclock to provide a delay?

`usleep' uses `clock' internally, so it only has 55-msec granularity.
I suggest to use `usleep', unless you find problems with it (in which
case please report them here).

- Raw text -