Message-ID: <001101c32669$0d16de90$0100a8c0@acp42g>
From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
To: "Ben Peddell" <killer DOT lightspeed AT bigpond DOT com>
Cc: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
References: <4wyBa.45993$1s1 DOT 615094 AT newsfeeds DOT bigpond DOT com> <200305300208 DOT h4U28vDV031441 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <3ED6C0EB DOT 3080403 AT bigpond DOT com> <200305300229 DOT h4U2T5vd031704 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <3ED6CF29 DOT 5060803 AT bigpond DOT com> <000e01c32663$436b9e50$0100a8c0 AT acp42g> <3ED6E375 DOT 60909 AT bigpond DOT com>
Subject: Re: uclock() still out by 1 in 65536
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 15:05:11 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> >Some questions:-
> >Are you using the 2.04 alpha 1 or the 2.03 release? If you are using the
> >2.04 alpha 1 then different code gets executed on NT/2K/XP than on
> >MS-DOS/W9x/ME, so now for the next questions :-
> >What OS are you using?
> >
> I am using 2.03 on MS-DOS. I also had a look at the code mirrored at
> <http://www.ludd.luth.se/~ams/djgpp/cvs/>, and it also showed that it's
> programming the clock to 65535 cycles per tic instead of 65536 cycles
> per tic. Can't seem to find the code you're talking about there.

The latest uclock.c has the following snippit of code in it, this is the
part that is executed only on NT/2K/XP.

  if (_os_trueversion == 0x532) {       /* Windows NT, 2000, XP */
    static double multiplier;
    static unsigned long btics;

.... SNIP.....


Andrew