Message-ID:	<387DD5C4.5B15214@ou.edu>
From:	David Cleaver <davidis AT ou DOT edu>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Question on a profiled program...
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000113094344 DOT 9693Y-100000 AT is>
Lines:	17
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:40:20 -0600
NNTP-Posting-Host:	129.15.140.115
X-Complaints-To:	usenet AT ou DOT edu
X-Trace:	news.ou.edu 947770751 129.15.140.115 (Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:39:11 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:39:11 CST
Organization:	The University of Oklahoma
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hello,

> Caveat: __umoddi3 is only relevant for operations on "long long" data
> type (64-bit integers).  Do you have such variables in your program,
> and if so, do they participate in the intensive part of your code?

Yes, my program does have these size variables, and yes they do
participate in the intensive part of my code.

> In any case, no function should ever take 100% percent of the CPU
> time.  If that's what the profile says, you are looking at a known bug
> in DJGPP v2.02; upgrade to v2.03.

It only took 60% of the total run time.  I've already upgraded, thank
you for the input though.  Have a nice day!  :)

-David C.

- Raw text -