Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 15:35:56 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: David Cleaver <davidis AT ou DOT edu>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Question on a profiled program...
In-Reply-To: <387A5447.B39CDAF4@ou.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000111153419.19064T-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, David Cleaver wrote:

> BTW, in the FAQ it was __dpmi_int that was being called extensively. 
> However, on my machine the "function" being called extensively is
> "__umoddi3".  Are these two related?  Does it matter which is being
> called extensively?

What do you mean by ``extensively'', in your case?  Did the profile
show 100% of the CPU time being used by that function?  If so, you
see a symptom of a known bug in DJGPP v2.02.  Upgrade to DJGPP v2.03
(released two days ago), recompile your program, and the problem should 
go away.