From: "Alexei A. Frounze" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: 3rd Try: Maybe an asm problem? (Problems linking) Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 21:13:49 +0400 Organization: MTU-Intel ISP Lines: 30 Message-ID: <390DBB4D.8428C0FB@mtu-net.ru> References: <390D67E4 DOT C48A1A4F AT mtu-net DOT ru> <390D84C5 DOT 197E6545 AT maths DOT unine DOT ch> <390D93E1 DOT 74B5DFB2 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <390DA810 DOT EC01A2E7 AT maths DOT unine DOT ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp98-196.dialup.mtu-net.ru Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: gavrilo.mtu.ru 957201305 51270 212.188.98.196 (1 May 2000 17:15:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse AT mtu DOT ru NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 May 2000 17:15:05 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,ru To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Gautier wrote: > > Okay, why not to freeze up DOS programs, due to task switch (it's possible to > > know when a task switch occurs)? > > Maybe there is another "Freeze me" Int2F that provides it ? Nope. :) Maybe freeze all the programs using Int 2Fh (1681h) :)) It may also hang Win 95 as well as "l: cli\n jmp l", if followed by infinite loop. :)) > Anyway the difference is not that big, so the "Release time slice" is > still useful - better than no Int2F at all... Yeah, that's right. Better than nothing. :) > In addition, the program may have a bit more than nothing to do, but just > a few, that can be done slowly. > > In fact you can/wish simply use a task switcher instead of preemptive multitasker > ("taskmgr /s" instead of "taskmgr") :-) "/s"? Explain, plz. bye. Alexei A. Frounze ----------------------------------------- Homepage: http://alexfru.chat.ru Mirror: http://members.xoom.com/alexfru