Re: nanosleep question

2001-03-11 Thread Michael Reinelt
george anzinger wrote: > > > > At the moment I implemented by own delay loop using a small assembler > > > > loop similar to the one used in the kernel. This has two disadvantages: > > > > assembler isn't that portable, and the loop has to be calibrated. > > > > > > Why not use C? As long as you

Re: nanosleep question

2001-03-10 Thread george anzinger
Michael Reinelt wrote: > > george anzinger wrote: > > > > Michael Reinelt wrote: > > > > > > At the moment I implemented by own delay loop using a small assembler > > > loop similar to the one used in the kernel. This has two disadvantages: > > > assembler isn't that portable, and the loop has to

Re: nanosleep question

2001-03-09 Thread Michael Reinelt
george anzinger wrote: > > Michael Reinelt wrote: > > > > At the moment I implemented by own delay loop using a small assembler > > loop similar to the one used in the kernel. This has two disadvantages: > > assembler isn't that portable, and the loop has to be calibrated. > > Why not use C? As

Re: nanosleep question

2001-03-09 Thread george anzinger
Michael Reinelt wrote: > > Hi, > > I've got a question regarding the nanosleep() system call. > > I'm writing a little tool called lcd4linux > (http://lcd4linux.sourceforge.net), where I have to drive displays > connected to the parallel port. I'm doing this in userland, using > outb(). > > So