From: josepva AT informatica DOT TELERJ DOT net DOT br
Message-ID: <39AE1D927549D111A88F00A0C94B9C7D628EF5@rj01mai01.informatica.telerj.net.br>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: RE: performance
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:41:00 -0200 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id KAA30581
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hello again,

> ----------
> De: 	Rafael García[SMTP:rafael AT geninfor DOT com]
> Enviada: 	Sábado, 30 de Janeiro de 1999 09:02
> Para: 	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
> Assunto: 	Re: performance
> 
> 
> josepva AT informatica DOT TELERJ DOT net DOT br escribió en mensaje
> <39AE1D927549D111A88F00A0C94B9C7D628ECB AT RJ01MAI01>...
> 
> >I'm troubled too, but I think that the diference in access speed is that
> the
> >DJGPP have to switch to real mode to call DOS funcs and it makes your
> >program slower.
> 
> The problem was the output to console during searching. The program shows
> in
> a 'status line'  the record in proccess during the search. This was de
> bottleneck: under BC y use direct access to video memory and time consumed
> is nothing. But I don´t know how can do this with gcc, and I changed
> output
> thru cputs. But this is SLOOOOOOOW.
> 
> I tried to profile using -pg parm to compiler and 'Link for profiling'
> from
> RHIDE, but program but it produces a SIGSEGV.
> 
> Then I did a test without output and got it. Now I have a limitation in
> frecuency of msgs to user during all proccess and times are good. Except
> where is necessary console output. Do you know if its possible to use
> another system for screen write?
> 
I don't know any library that writes direct to the video memory for DJGPP.
But you can always write your own funcs in C or ASM.

> Thank you.
> 
> 
>