Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:19:03 +0100 (MET)
From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka AT ta DOT jcu DOT cz>
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
cc: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il, itmiller AT dra DOT hmg DOT gb, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Exact timming II
In-Reply-To: <199702161212.HAA10141@delorie.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970217141758.32046D-100000@tabor.ta.jcu.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, DJ Delorie wrote:

> 
> > Will somebody who sees these problems please try debugging them?  
> > `uclock' works on MSDOS (at least for me), so I suspect that something in 
> > it is incompatible with Windows.  It reprograms the system timer, but 
> > that in itself doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't work.
> 
> uclock() will give negative numbers if the OS prevents it from
> reprogramming the timer chip (or resets it).  The default clocking
so allegro problems are caused by reseting timer? So in case I will start 
timing after I will init allegro timers everything should work?

I will try it..
> mode is a stupid 50% duty cycle that doesn't count linearly (it counts
> even numbers up to N, then triggers, then goes back and counts the odd
> numbers up to N, then resets).
> 
> There is no way to get a meaningful result in this mode, and the clock
> works just fine in the other mode (count to N then pulse-trigger).
> 
Honza
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Have you browsed my www pages? Look at:
                       http://www.paru.cas.cz/~hubicka
      Koules-the game for Svgalib,X11 and OS/2,  Xonix-the game for X11
      czech documentation for linux index, original 2D computer art and
              funny 100 years old photos and articles are there!