🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <658@faatcrl.UUCP> jimb@faatcrl.UUCP (Jim Burwell) writes:

[many kinds of text deleted]

>
>Well, no.  There's another level to the timer device which makes it too
>unstable for a music program IMHO.  Of course, I havn't really tried it :-).
>But, I'm assuming things won't be reliable enough because the timer.device
>only returns Exec IOrequests to your task.  Exec must then (eventually) 
>wake up your task.  That can take any ammount of time, depending on 
>system load, priorities, etc.  
>
>With the scheme I proposed, the player routine would still be on an interrupt,
>which is CPU controlled instead of Kernal controlled.

Well, you can setup your message port so that a software interrupt is generated
when the timer.device replys your IOrequest. Of course your suggested method
have slightly less overhead, but I don't think the difference is so big after
all.
>
>And since you mentioned that the timer.device does exactly what I proposed,
>I guess that means what I proposed will work!  Thanx.  You managed to answer
>one of my questions.
>

Well, I did forget to mention software interrupts in connection to message
ports. I sort of assumed you knew about that possibility...  ;)

>Jim

/Stellan
-----------
This sig is stolen, but that is alright since nobody ever missed it...