From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: __djgpp_map_physical_memory - some questions
Date: 12 Jun 2001 10:39:48 GMT
Organization: Aachen University of Technology (RWTH)
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <9g4rhk$j9t$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010612115314 DOT 1700Q-100000 AT is>
NNTP-Posting-Host: acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de
X-Trace: nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE 992342388 19773 137.226.32.75 (12 Jun 2001 10:39:48 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT rwth-aachen DOT de
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Jun 2001 10:39:48 GMT
Originator: broeker@
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:

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

>>    So, Win9x DOS box is the best environment for DJGPP, isn't it?

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

Let me add that DOSEMU, in my experience, is no worse than Windows at
all. It's really quite nice, once you've configured it to support
DPMI. It even has the added benefit of debugging printouts from DOSEMU
itself you can activate, which might come in very handy at times.

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

Here, I beg to differ. A busy-loop calling time() or one of its friend
is the *only* truly portable way you can make a program check its own
running time, since these functions are required by ANSI C itself.
Compare that to the portabilities of alarm() and setitimer():

alarm: not ANSI, POSIX
setitimer: not ANSI, not POSIX


-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.