Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:20:17 +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: <3d28g9.fqi.ln@nix-if1>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010614111938.972T-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 Wed, 13 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?
> EZ> It depends.  For some uses, plain DOS with CWSDPMI is better.
>    Which DOS is better? Is it MS-DOS, PC-DOS, some other DOS?

What's the difference between these two?

I use plain MS-DOS, if that matters.

> EZ> If timeouts are the issue, you could use `alarm' or `setitimer' for a 
> EZ> much better and more portable code.
>    No, I can't use setitimer() with djgpp because setitimer() uses 
> uclock() which doesn't works properly under win9x, when program is in
> background mode.

uclock does work on Windows, both in fore- and background programs.
It's the timer tick interrupts that break setitimer in background:
Windows almost stops delivering interrupts to such a program.