Date:	Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:55:25 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id:	<9003-Wed28Nov2001195525+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.1.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to:	<3C04C3EE.A97F7057@yahoo.com> (message from CBFalconer on Wed, 28
	Nov 2001 16:41:45 GMT)
Subject:	Re: uclock() and struct rusage
References:	<3C03503F DOT E9AE61D3 AT bigfoot DOT com> <3C03C095 DOT AEBDC2EC AT yahoo DOT com> <1438-Tue27Nov2001224303+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3C04C3EE DOT A97F7057 AT yahoo DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 16:41:45 GMT
> > 
> > > I expect this is not even portable under W98.  I hope to try it
> > > later using the identical compiler, etc., but running on this '486
> > > system.  I expect it will crash with an 'illegal instruction'
> > > failing.
> > 
> > What possible cause(s) do you see for the illegal instruction
> > failure?
> 
> I left the quote to capture the source in my own sent file.  I
> suspect that system is calling some sort of cpu cycle timer that
> exists only in the Pentium.  Something like rdtsc??

No, uclock doesn't use rdtsc, it uses the system timer chip.  So no
illegal instructions should result.

(The sources of the DJGPP library are freely available, so you really
don't need to speculate.)

- Raw text -