home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: oreig.uji.es!ii202
- From: ii202@rossegat.uji.es (Jorge Acereda Macia)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: C2P
- Date: 22 Jan 1996 20:25:26 GMT
- Organization: Universitat Jaume I. Castell≤ de la Plana. Spain
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <4e0rrm$hld@oreig.uji.es>
- References: <4cu7vo$17q@sinsen.sn.no> <4djdu8$ba@oreig.uji.es> <4dkbml$em2@maureen.teleport.com> <4dm3sm$pvm@sunsystem5.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: @rossegat.uji.es
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
-
- Juergen "Rally" Fischer (fischerj@informatik.tu-muenchen.de) wrote:
-
- > |> : IMHO it's better to measure ms. instead of scanlines... Scanlines
- > |> : measuring is harder in OS-friendly code.
-
- > no timer is more accurate than showing the timing via raster display.
- > you know any method with less overhead than the 8 cycles for a write
- > to colorregister ?
-
- Yeah, but when testing multitasking code this can be a bit harder.
- ReadEClock() is fast. A scanline is a lot of time. ms are more accurate
- in this sense if you measure in "integer rasterlines".
-
- And what's that of writing to colorregisters? Are you counting scanlines
- directly in the monitor??? %-)
-
- Greets,
- --
- ---------------------------- --------------------------------------------
- | Jorge Acereda | Dream the same thing everynight |
- | ii202@rossegat.uji.es | I see our freedom in my sight |
- | Intel Outside | No locked doors, no windows barred |
- | Amiga Rules | No things to make my brain seem scarred |
- ---------------------------- --------------------------------------------
-