Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!axion!tigger!raph
From: raph@tigger.planet.bt.co.uk (Raphael Mankin)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re^2: observability
Message-ID: <560@tigger.planet.bt.co.uk>
Date: 14 Sep 89 09:23:51 GMT
References: <1237@gmdzi.UUCP> <10885@smoke.BRL.MIL> <242@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl> <10937@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1989Sep6.160709.4890@light.uucp> <1989Sep6.183349.2866@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <28946@news.Think.COM> <1989Sep8.091010.12450@gdt.bath.ac.uk>
Organization: RT5111, BTRL, Martlesham Heath, England
Lines: 23

exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee) writes:
<STUFF DELETED>
>(The counter-example people inevitably come up with is 'maybe the
>program is meant to be a timing loop'.  The tired answer is 'if you
>want a time delay, you should tell the operating system to put you to
>sleep for some period of time, rather than wasting CPU cycles twiddling
>your thumbs.  The other users of your multi-user system will thank you
>for it.)
>-- 

Not all C programs run on multi-user systems, and not all computers
have operating systems or clocks. A large part of my output is for
stand-alone processors, the ones that go on modem cards and the like.
I HATE timing loops - someone is sure to put in a faster chip without
telling me - but sometimes it is the only way to do things. I
therefore rely, if I can't avoid it, on the compiler not optimising
out 'empty' loops.

Raphael Mankin
raph@planet.bt.co.uk
-- 
Raphael Mankin
raph@planet.bt.co.uk