From: Mark Slagell <bald_soprano AT nospam DOT usa DOT net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: PCTIME13
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 06:58:39 -0600
Organization: Lunar Hostility Studies
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <34548FFF.4CF4@nospam.usa.net>
References: <3453BC56 DOT 55A6 AT nospam DOT usa DOT net> <3455600a DOT 1637974 AT news DOT uni-duisburg DOT de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dial38.ppp.iastate.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Michael Mauch wrote:
> > What I'm trying to get, ultimately, is a reliable 200hz interrupt.
> 
> On plain DOS you can use the libc function uclock(), on Windows/Win95
> you can use the puclock() function that is in the DJGPP mail archives
> at www.delorie.com (search for puclock()).

That would provide a high-resolution timer, but not an interrupt per se,
or would it?

I can get PCTIME running at the right speed by removing this line from
pm_new8h():
  ++ticks_8h;

So it would seem that under Windows, both the protected mode and real
mode handlers get called with every timer tick, and under DOS only the
real mode handler gets called.  I don't understand this, and would
rather not blindly hack at the code without knowing why a modification
seems to work...

  Mark


--

Remove the "nospam." to reply by email.