From: "John M. Aldrich" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Display question... Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 19:02:57 -0400 Organization: Two pounds of chaos and a pinch of salt. Lines: 34 Message-ID: <35E73721.D2D248D0@cs.net> References: <35E4E7EF DOT CF07B3F4 AT post DOT comstar DOT ru> <3 DOT 0 DOT 5 DOT 16 DOT 19980827202740 DOT 2cfff282 AT mail DOT tir DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp206.cs.net 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 Thomas J. Hruska wrote: > > I'm writing a spreadsheet block converter in Borland Turbo C (16-bit) which > I will compile under DJGPP once I've got it working. DJGPP has poor > error/warning alerts compared to Borland's (I use the IDE in both cases). Without trying to argue with you, I want to ask if you've used the full warning options that gcc has to offer. Before doing this comparison, make sure to check the -Wall and -O switches in the compiler options. If you _really_ want gcc to generate warnings, add -W, -ansi, and/or -pedantic. :-) > How badly is the performance cut since I only want to let the user know > that the program is working and to please wait? Since most of the activity > of the program is hard drive related (and some blocks can take 5-10 seconds > to process in a 16-bit environment), I figured 32-bit was the best way to > go to speed things up a bit. > > How long does it take to switch to and from real mode? It depends largely on the speed of the system, from what I understand. However, have you considered using the functions for this kind of busy wait output? They are much more suited for the task than stdio functions. -- John M. Aldrich, aka Fighteer I UIN# 7406319 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS d- s+:- a-->? C++>$ U@>++$ p>+ L>++ E>++ W++ N++ o+>++ K? w(---) O- M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP- t+(-) 5- X- R+(++) tv+() b+++ DI++ D++ G>++ e(*)>++++ h!() !r !y+() ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------