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
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

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.

- Raw text -