Message-ID: <000e01c32663$436b9e50$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>
Subject: Re: uclock() still out by 1 in 65536
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 14:23:45 +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

> uclock() assumes 0x1800B0 tics in a day.
>
> There are 1193180*86400/65536 = 1573040.04 (0x1800B0) tics in an day.
>
> With a timer period of 65535, it would have 1573064.04 (0x1800C8) tics
> in a day.
> It would gain one full tic per hour, and would be out by 1.5 seconds at
> the end of the day.
Ben,

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?

If you are using 2.03 have you checked to see if the 2.04 alpha 1 changes
fix it? I can't remember seeing a fix for this sort of problem.

BTW Over last weekend at work I performed some RTC checking on a PC and on
an embedded systems product and found that they both drifted by approx 2
seconds a day. Then on Tuesday again at work we found a server that must
have drifted approx 7 minutes over a long period of time. And now
this....... Amazing number of time isses in the last week that I have seen
in the last week.

Thanks,
Andrew