Message-ID:	<3EAE7990.C6D03B76@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:09:36 -0400
From:	CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
Organization:	Ched Research
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: uclock proposed patch
References:	<10304290440 DOT AA26174 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <3EAE64CC DOT DBA5C7D7 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Richard Dawe wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> Perhaps we could try executing _rdtsc after calling signal, to
> see if we actually need the signal handler? If not, restore the
> previous handler.
> 
> I don't like the idea of installing the signal handler, if we
> don't need it. I suppose this would have the disadvantage that
> the code will behave differently on systems with and without
> RDTSC. That may be a problem, if no-one tests it on a system
> without RDTSC. I certainly don't have any systems without RDTSC.
> So maybe it would be best to always install it.

I am running a 486 under W98 with no RDTSC - any such crashes.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

- Raw text -