Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 22:08:57 -0400
Message-Id: <200305300208.h4U28vDV031441@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
CC: killer DOT lightspeed AT bigpond DOT com
In-reply-to: <4wyBa.45993$1s1.615094@newsfeeds.bigpond.com> (message from Ben
	Peddell on Fri, 30 May 2003 11:42:42 +1000)
Subject: Re: uclock() still out by 1 in 65536
References:  <4wyBa.45993$1s1 DOT 615094 AT newsfeeds DOT bigpond DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> I guess I'm probably reporting this to the wrong place.

Close, though.  Redirected to djgpp-workers.

> I know that this is a very small complaint, but uclock() is still out by 
> 1 in 65536.
> 
>      outportb(0x43, 0x34);
>      outportb(0x40, 0xff);
>      outportb(0x40, 0xff);
> 
> I think this should really be:
> 
>      outportb(0x43, 0x34);
>      outportb(0x40, 0x00);
>      outportb(0x40, 0x00);
> 
> I guess you could say it's more a tiny inconvenience than a bug.

If the count's wrong, it's a bug.  The question is - are we *supposed*
to be counting to 65535, or 65536?  IIRC there are some oddities in
how the timer works.