Date:	Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:19:42 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT crosswinds DOT net>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Fastest bitblt?
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10003012019380.1919-100000@darkstar.grendel.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000302111919.24728J-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel wrote:

> Say there is a interrupt
> handler which is called 100 times per sec. And say that there is only one
> call to movedata in the interrupt handler. That would mean that a total of
> 100 calls to move data per sec. so imagine the overhead of setting up even
> the segregs repetetively.

First, movedata is for copying large buffers, and such things
shouldn't be done in an interrupt handler.

And second, even on a 486, loading a segment register takes 9 cycles
in protected mode.  Compared to the time to actually move the data,
this is nil.

> surely no one can say that nearptrs are slower than farptrs.

They aren't slower, but they aren't significantly faster, either.  So
using them is usually a bad tradeoff.

- Raw text -