Re: Success! Sorta! (was Re: 'microuptime() went backwards ...'using ACPI timer. Shouldn't that be impossible? )

2002-02-17 Thread Bruce Evans
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Whoop! I take it back. I'm still getting the errors: > > microuptime() went backwards (458.168990 -> 458.168882) > microuptime() went backwards (578.609995 -> 577.929801) > microuptime() went backwards (748.912755 -> 748.237402) > microuptime() w

Re: Success! Sorta! (was Re: 'microuptime() went backwards ...' using ACPI timer. Shouldn't that be impossible? )

2002-02-17 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon wri tes: >Whoop! I take it back. I'm still getting the errors: > >microuptime() went backwards (458.168990 -> 458.168882) >microuptime() went backwards (578.609995 -> 577.929801) >microuptime() went backwards (748.912755 -> 748.237402) >microupt

Re: Success! Sorta! (was Re: 'microuptime() went backwards ...' using ACPI timer. Shouldn't that be impossible? )

2002-02-17 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon wri tes: >However, I think to be complete we need to make it even less elegant. >The TC module is only flip-flopping between two time counters, which >means that it can flip-flop twice and the test will not work. We need >a generatio

Re: Success! Sorta! (was Re: 'microuptime() went backwards ...' using ACPI timer. Shouldn't that be impossible? )

2002-02-17 Thread Matthew Dillon
Whoop! I take it back. I'm still getting the errors: microuptime() went backwards (458.168990 -> 458.168882) microuptime() went backwards (578.609995 -> 577.929801) microuptime() went backwards (748.912755 -> 748.237402) microuptime() went backwards (775.159625 -> 775.159612) I also th