From:	"Erik Anell" <pintie AT telia DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	too slow to be true: rest_callback .
Lines:	19
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Message-ID:	<1UYl4.4586$al3.57398@newsc.telia.net>
Date:	Wed, 02 Feb 2000 16:25:33 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host:	62.20.145.109
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT telia DOT com
X-Trace:	newsc.telia.net 949508733 62.20.145.109 (Wed, 02 Feb 2000 17:25:33 MET)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Wed, 02 Feb 2000 17:25:33 MET
Organization:	Telia Internet
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hello,
When I try to use rest_callback(time,foo)  (it should repeatedly enter void
foo(void) until <time> milliseconds has passed)
I situated the rest_callback() call inside function foo(), making sure it
wasn't repeated more than once...
If I set [time=1] and ran the program, it went really really slow...

But It can't have been because of the foo() function being too slow,
because, when I tried to replace rest_callback(1,foo) with foo(), it got
gigantically faster immediately...

So, to sum up:
How come there was such a huge difference between foo() and
rest_callback(1,foo) for me?

Regards,
Erik Anell

- Raw text -