delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann) |
Message-Id: | <10108141456.AA13336@clio.rice.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Selector Exhaustion |
To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, pavenis AT lanet DOT lv |
Date: | Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:56:27 -0500 (CDT) |
Cc: | acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au (Andrew Cottrell), eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il |
In-Reply-To: | <3B790835.21623.13164B@localhost> from "pavenis@lanet.lv" at Aug 14, 2001 11:15:01 AM |
X-Mailer: | ELM [version 2.5 PL2] |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
> Initially I did some timing: > checking all descriptors once took about 1 ms on PIII-700 (Win98SE) This worries me a bit - this means about 1/4 of second on the 386/16 type platform for the two checks around a call. This could add hours to a build on slower machines. I was hoping to be smarter about the area scanned. For example, allocate 1 selector to get a starting point, then scan 50 selectors above that point (cut time by factor of 400). We might consider in-lining the lar call or making a new routine to do a bulk check? We also can't hard code selectors (like 7 as the start in the example) since this is bad under non-ring-3 DPMI providers. Your example looks very much like what I was working on last night :-)
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |