From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Why did ID choose DJGPP for Quake? Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 09:30:59 +0200 Organization: NetVision Israel Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <199912312332 DOT RAA15911 AT lakdiva DOT slt DOT lk> <84tj7t$si3$1 AT soap DOT pipex DOT net> <852kos$o9$1 AT soap DOT pipex DOT net> NNTP-Posting-Host: is.elta.co.il Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: news.netvision.net.il 947403259 10058 199.203.121.2 (9 Jan 2000 07:34:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse AT netvision DOT net DOT il NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Jan 2000 07:34:19 GMT X-Sender: eliz AT is In-Reply-To: <852kos$o9$1@soap.pipex.net> To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Stephen Howe wrote: > >Not quite true. Calling real-mode services has different overheads, > >depending what environments and waht methods are used to call > >real-mode code from a protected-mode program. Part of this overhead > >is in the library (copying data to conventional memory, preparing the > >real-mode call structures, etc.). > > Ok, you are talking about the setup of parameters for a call of DPMI > 301h/302h etc. Hrrrmmm, hardly seems much of a test as I would expect the > majority of the time would be in the real mode function or interrupt. If the majority of the time would be in the real-mode function, we wouldn't be talking about the overhead of the mode switch, would we? In reality, there *is* some overhead involved (the DJGPP FAQ spends some time discussing the related issues in section 14.4). How significant it is, depends not only on the quality of the library code, but also on the run-time environment parameters, such as what ring does the program and/or the DPMI host run, etc.