Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 10:58:46 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Gisle Vanem <giva AT bryggen DOT bgnett DOT no>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: OS/2 + delay() bug
In-Reply-To: <Pine.UW2.3.95.990901232127.24353A-100000@bryggen.bgnett.no>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990902105607.4794N-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Gisle Vanem wrote:

> It's probably a bug in emulation of Int15h/86. AFAIK Win-NT has a 
> similar problem with delay(). Better to use usleep() altogether.

A problem with `usleep' is that it has a 55-msec granularity; `delay' has 
a 1-msec granularity.  If you need delays smaller than 55 msec, you might 
try writing your own loop that calls `uclock'.  (I don't know whether 
`uclock' works well on OS/2.)