Date:	Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:24:22 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: new uclock.c (with Windows VTD.VXD support)
In-Reply-To:	<3810693E.57B486B3@cyberoptics.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.991024092359.29385F@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Eric Rudd wrote:

> > /* tics = about 18.2 * 65536 (1,192,755)
> >
> >    actually, it's   0x1800b0 tics/day (FAQ)
> >                   / 24*60*60 sec/day
> >                   * 65536 utics/tic
> >                   = 1,193,180 utics/sec */
> 
> I know this is not of great importance, but I can't resist setting the record
> straight regarding the frequency of the 8254 timer.

I want to be sure I understand what you are saying.  The facts you
described are mostly known (we even had a thread not so long ago on
c.o.m.d. about this), but what are you saying in practice?  Is the
above formula (due to DJ, btw) incorrect?  If so, how it should be
corrected, in your opinion?

> Somewhere in the docs is the statement that there are 65536 ticks
> per hour.  This is very close, but not quite correct, as one can
> verify with a calculator given the above facts.

I don't see this number anywhere in libc.info, neither in v2.02 nor in
the latest alpha of v2.03.  There's a number 65543.33 in the docs of
_bios_timeofday, but that's all.

- Raw text -