Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:24:39 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Sisco, Michael" <mdsisco AT qtiworld DOT com>
cc: "Djgpp (E-mail)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: Fw: uclock() within an interrupt handler
In-Reply-To: <BDD73AE8AEE3EF438E07420C2600E9F65C9150@qtiexch0.qgraph.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020919142410.2289C-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 Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Sisco, Michael wrote:

> > As you will see from the sources, uclock issues an Int 2Fh call, which 
> > might not be a good idea in an interrupt handler.  I'd suggest to take 
> > that call out of the code and see if that helps.
> 
> I specifically checked the source for uclock() and I found no such interrupt
> 
> being issued. Am I missing something?

You are missing the fact that __dpmi_yield issues Int 2Fh.