[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
George Foot <george.foot@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> By using SWITCH_PAUSE and remembering the value displayed just before
> switching (which stays still for a while), I noted that the increment is
> around 4296xx for some `xx'. This seems pretty consistent.
Interesting, I'll have a look and see if I can duplicate this. It isn't
immediately obvious how this could be happening, though, since interrupts
are paused the whole time the app is in the background (being ignored),
and the first thing that happens on switching back to the foreground is to
set the previous time value to the current time, to skip over whatever
time passed while the app was frozen. Either one of the calls must not be
happening, or we have an out-by-one error somewhere that is wrapping the
whole thing to a -1 time gap, and then it thinks that is hugely positive.
The current implementation is simpler than your original code, which tried
to compensate for however far it was through the current timeslice when
the switch occured. I was changing all that stuff around in order to fix a
couple of overflow bugs, and simplified the switch handling in the
process, since it didn't seem worth the bother of handling that partial
timeslice, given that it only happens just after we've been suspending the
clock for some indeterminate but essentially random period of time!
> > > 2. I think the tar.gz distribution should name the directory
> > > `allegro-X.Y.Z', in order to comply with the unix standard.
> >
> > I was actually thinking about doing that for the zip version at one
> > point
>
> I only see two drawbacks: Patches can't rename directories,
> and DOS directory names have to be rather short.
Both good drawbacks. Not being able to rename directories isn't really a
problem (just apply the patch from one level further down, with -p2
instead of -p1), but an 8 letter name would be annoying. Plus changing
this would require updating all of zipup.sh, zipwin.sh, and
mkunixdists.sh, which seems like hard work :-) Where other scripts need to
read and modify the archive created by zipup.sh, it's easier if the
directory name inside that is constant.
I don't know, though: am I just being too lazy here? It is fairly standard
in DOS and Windows that directories don't usually contain version numbers,
unlike on Unix...
> Why would it be less convenient for you? Symbolic links are great,
> where supported. :)
Yeah. That's why I'm happy to do this on Unix, but less convinced that it
is a good idea for the DOS version :-)
--
Shawn Hargreaves - shawn@xxxxxxxxxx - http://www.talula.demon.co.uk/
"A binary is barely software: it's more like hardware on a floppy disk."