Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:53:46 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Yury A. Zaitsev" <yurick AT oblik DOT dp DOT ua>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: __djgpp_map_physical_memory - some questions
In-Reply-To: <3c03g9.v17.ln@nix-if1>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010612115314.1700Q-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Yury A. Zaitsev wrote:

> >>        But IMHO djgpp works better under windoze dos session, not under 
> >> dosemu :(, isn't it? 
> EZ> I wasn't thinking about DOSEmu.
>    So, Win9x DOS box is the best environment for DJGPP, isn't it?

It depends.  For some uses, plain DOS with CWSDPMI is better.

> >>     I has been forced to use clock() (which works fast) instead of time()
> >> because I need to call it many times...
> EZ> Why do you need to call `time' many times?  It's unusual that a program 
> EZ> should need that.
>    Do you know a _portable_ way to check timeouts? Time() (or gettimeofday())
> is portable and fast (under Linux, for example ;). So, program looks 
> like this:
> --------------------------------------------------
> while (!timeout()) {
>    if (do_a_piece_of_work()==SUCCESS) break;
> }
> --------------------------------------------------

If timeouts are the issue, you could use `alarm' or `setitimer' for a 
much better and more portable code.