From: "FYS" <zfysz AT cybertrails DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1020529090230 DOT 27552A-100000 AT is>
Subject: Re: [bug] delay() doesn't work under WinXP
Lines: 42
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <Xs_I8.54628$Kp.5602893@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 01:22:47 CDT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
X-Trace: sv3-dv2OeLLAJ7glMAhnj7amZMcExw6yjvrpPQAMAOiHuniWQ2TwvIgoj/aLooR9YFTv5TW3o2qZpk1iXeC!Z4KE7F1dEbEPrgUZ5Li4HpSPS4oeeotYsFCsiRUEOwOAvBnz01lFmarZ0ABtJqsO1LYGDiHTIv1/!4fxPe34EHIucLG1u
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT GigaNews DOT Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 06:22:47 GMT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


Hi Eli,
  (Sorry about the TIA name calling :).  You never know
    what nicknames/alias/handles people use now-a-days :)

I don't think NT 2000 does either.

I didn't need a very "tight" delay increment, so I just
used the counter at 0x0046C.  However, this won't be
applicable for a replacement delay() function :)

BTW, TIA, CUL8R, :)

Ben

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Forever Young Software
http://www.cybertrails.com/~fys/index.htm
To reply by email, please remove the zzzzzz's

Batteries not included,
Some assembly required.


"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote in message
news:Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1020529090230 DOT 27552A-100000 AT is...
>
> On Mon, 27 May 2002, Dr. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E1s=20S=F3lyom?= wrote:
>
> > I added a printf before the _dpmi_int() to print out all of the
> > registers. All parameters were correct  but the interrupt returns
> > immediately with the flag register set to 0x247 on my machine CF
> > indicates an error condition. Unfortunately I do not know which bit of
> > the flags is CF. And AH remained 0x86 which means that there was no
> > 'wait in progress', in which case AH would be 0x83.
>
> Sounds like XP doesn't support in its BIOS emulator the Int 15h function
> used by `delay'.
>