Sender: "Rolf Campbell" <cp1v45 AT nortelnetworks DOT com>
Message-ID: <37691E54.7ACB94D6@americasm01.nt.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:12:04 -0400
From: "Rolf Campbell" <cp1v45 AT nortelnetworks DOT com>
Organization: Nortel Networks
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/712)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [AL] Compilers comparisson, some opinions about the generated , 
         assembler
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990617101628 DOT 22717D-100000 AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> The WinTop program shows that the Explorer consumes 0% CPU.  The only
> Windows task that consumes something visible while I type is
> SYSDOC32.EXE (whatever that means), and it takes something like 0.5%,
> sometimes goes up to 0.84%.  Everything else is idling.
>

    I suspect it's the windows DPMI stuff, and in general, all vm interupts.
Process creation/memory allocation (behind sbrk)/interupt
enabling/disabling,.... it all adds up.
    Once apon a time, I wrote a program in DJGPP.  It took a file as an input
and would do the exact same set of actions, for the exact same input data
(deterministic).  When I ran it in real DOS with the same input file, it
always ended up taking the exact same amount of time.  Under W95, not only
was it running at 10-30% slower, but it would vary greatly from one moment to
another.  I would run it twice in a row, and one would be 9.8 seconds, the
other would be 7.6 seconds.  That just goes to show that nobody really knows
what W95 does in it's spare time.

--
     -Rolf Campbell (39)3-6318