From: bd733 AT rgfn DOT epcc DOT edu (Jason M. Daniels)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: rawclock() and other time.h functions
Date: 15 Jun 1997 18:41:14 GMT
Organization: The Rio Grande Free-Net, El Paso Community College, El Paso, TX
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <5o1d0a$1gu@news.epcc.edu>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970612181819 DOT 9257V-100000 AT is> <19970612 DOT 170431 DOT 8822 DOT 3 DOT bshadwick AT juno DOT com> <5o0mi4$nv1 AT news DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rgfn.epcc.edu
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

George Foot (mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk) wrote:
> Making them behave as the docs say would render them useless (almost) for
> timing purposes. Consider what would happen if your program was running at
> midnight - mysterious bugs with the timing would occur. Spooky.

Look, I agree that the functionality of uclock is a good thing to have. 
However, since it already exists, why duplicate the exact same thing in 
rawclock? Every timing mechanisim has its use; and so does the documented 
working of rawclock.

--
Jason Daniels -- bd733 AT rgfn DOT epcc DOT edu
---> BELIEVE THE LIE <---
Linux: The choice of a GNU generation.
Winblows 95: The world's best-selling computer virus.