From: "Erik Anell" <pintie AT telia DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: too slow to be true: rest_callback .
Lines: 19
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Message-ID: <1UYl4.4586$al3.57398@newsc.telia.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 16:25:33 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.20.145.109
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT telia DOT com
X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 949508733 62.20.145.109 (Wed, 02 Feb 2000 17:25:33 MET)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 17:25:33 MET
Organization: Telia Internet
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hello,
When I try to use rest_callback(time,foo)  (it should repeatedly enter void
foo(void) until <time> milliseconds has passed)
I situated the rest_callback() call inside function foo(), making sure it
wasn't repeated more than once...
If I set [time=1] and ran the program, it went really really slow...

But It can't have been because of the foo() function being too slow,
because, when I tried to replace rest_callback(1,foo) with foo(), it got
gigantically faster immediately...

So, to sum up:
How come there was such a huge difference between foo() and
rest_callback(1,foo) for me?

Regards,
Erik Anell