Re: load average patches for MiNT 1.10 + patches

[mk@anuurn.do.open.de (Martin Koehling)]

Hi Juergen,

>Martin Koehling writes:
>> Hi Juergen,
>moin
>>
>> >michael smith writes:
>> >>  but I don't believe in that sort
>> >> of ceiling regardless of how it's implemented, and someone is _bound_ to harp
>> >> on it.)
>> >
>> > true.  thats also why you should always do timeouts checks like this
>> >
>> >	unsigned tick = timer counter (like _hz_200) + time to wait;
>> >	for (...)
>> >		if (timer counter - tick > 0)  break;
>> >
>> >instead of
>> >	...
>> >		if (timer counter > tick)  break;
>> >
>> >(and any compiler that `optimizes' the difference away should be shot. :)
>>
>> I don't quite see the difference between these two checks - they _both_
>> will come into trouble if `counter + time to wait' exceeds the value range
>> of `unsigned'!
>
> hmpf i shouldn't post from memory... remove the unsigned, i.e. make
>it a signed comparison.  better? :)

Much better - that's quite a neat trick! :)

Martin
-- 
 Martin Koehling | mk@anuurn.do.open.de | Martin_Koehling@un.maus.ruhr.de