From: mauch AT uni-duisburg DOT de (Michael Mauch)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Timer problems ( delay, uclock )
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 18:50:46 +0200
Organization: Home, sweet home (via Gesamthochschule Duisburg)
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <5rqfp5$jlv$2@news-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
References: <5rmvcj$eh0 AT gutemine DOT informatik DOT uni-kiel DOT de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp53.uni-duisburg.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

On 30 Jul 1997 08:52:35 GMT, hbs AT informatik DOT uni-kiel DOT de (Henrik Schmidt)
wrote:

> I replaced delay() with a loop in my network code and it made things
> worse.

Did you try calling pause() or __dpmi_yield() in your loop?
These functions call Int2Fh, 1680h, about which Ralf Brown's Interrupt
List says:

>>>
programs can use this function in idle loops to enhance performance
  under multitaskers; this call is supported by MS Windows 3+, DOS 5+,
  DPMI 1.0+, and in OS/2 2.0+ for multitasking DOS applications
does not block the program; it just gives up the remainder of the time
  slice should not be used by Windows-specific programs
when called very often without intermediate screen output under
  MS Windows 3.x, the VM will go into an idle-state and will not
  receive the next slice before 8 seconds have elapsed. This time can
  be changed in SYSTEM.INI through "IdleVMWakeUpTime=<seconds>".
  Setting it to zero results in a long wait.
this function has no effect under OS/2 2.10-4.0 if the DOS box has an
  "Idle Sensitivity" setting of 100
<<<

Regards...
		Michael
-- 
Spammers: ask secretreports AT answerme DOT com for free info
about how to explode your business.
hoefner AT ddv DOT de wants to learn more about spam and UCE. Please help him.