Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!shlump.nac.dec.com!shodha.dec.com!elvira!ridder
From: ridder@elvira.enet.dec.com (Hans Ridder)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Sleeping (was Re: Lattice C 5.04 bug)
Message-ID: <536@shodha.dec.com>
Date: 19 Dec 89 18:03:53 GMT
References: <828@wet.UUCP> <12147@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> <14996@well.UUCP>
Sender: news@shodha.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Customer Support Center
Lines: 29

In article <14996@well.UUCP> farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes:
>In article <12147@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> gregg@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (gregg.g.wonderly) writes:
>>From article <828@wet.UUCP>, by mcw@wet.UUCP (Martin Warnett):
>>	Delay (60*n);
>               ^^------- 50 * n, please - Delay works in 50ths of a second.
>>the code was written with huge amounts of StartIO/WaitIO and other such
>>nonsense.  
>
>Huge amounts of StartIO/WaitIO implies usage of timer.device, ....
 ^^^^

I don't understand.  Why "huge" amounts of StartIO()/WaitIO()?  When I
use the timer.device (for a simple delay), it usually takes just one
simple DoIO(), and about three lines of code to set it up (not
counting the CreatePort() ...  OpenDevice(), etc.)  Although I can
never remember the contents of the silly timeval structure, it always
seemed fairly simple to me.

Am I missing something, or are Mike and Gregg exaggerating for effect?

>-- 
>Mike Farren 				     farren@well.sf.ca.usa

-hans

========================================================================
  Hans-Gabriel Ridder			Digital Equipment Corporation
  ridder@elvira.enet.dec.com		Customer Support Center
  ...decwrl!elvira.enet!ridder		Colorado Springs, CO