Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!ames!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!navas
From: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Come on PEOPLE...
Message-ID: <22314@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 22 Feb 90 15:59:29 GMT
References: <1990Feb12.223912.7167@ug.cs.dal.ca> <13570022@hpspdra.HP.COM>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (David C. Navas)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 12

In article <13570022@hpspdra.HP.COM> ric@hpspdra.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino) writes:
>In reading the RKM I found a statement saying that one should
>not disable interupts for more than 250us. My routine violated
>this but it exited gracefully; at least with no other active 
>processes. Does any one know the underlying reason for the 250us?

Well, I've been bad in this manner -- and discovered that my interlaced
screen would often de-interlace, seeing as how I was not allowing my
copper interrupts to run... :)

David Navas
navas@cory.berkeley.edu