On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 22:52:30 +0200 (MEST), Peter Gerwinski wrote:
According to Kevin A. Foss:
If all you need is system time, why do you go through all of the DPMI/int calls/&c, instead of just using extended Pascal's timestamp routines.
These only have a resolution of one second which probably is not "random" enough for this purpose. The 1/100s when a program was started is almost a true random number; if we use the second in the minute it might be too regular.
Well then, let's add a 100ths count to timestamp... :)
Seriously, is anyone doing any work on adding the proposed extensions to timestamp mentioned in the docs? An implemented us_Timer field would be random enough, I'd think. Of course, I already see this becoming a chicken-and-the-egg problem, because I don't know of a portable way to get system time readings of less than a second. But I would guess that all platforms offer the information in some form or another, and we could populate rts-time.c with a bunch of #ifdefs.
-Kevin -- Kevin A. Foss --- kfoss@mint.net --