English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Support > support.Other

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 31 July 2019, 22:55   #61
patrik
Registered User
patrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Umeå
Age: 39
Posts: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrambler77 View Post
Hallo everyone. I'm having that issue too: KS 3.1.4/Workbench 3.1.4/SetPatch 45.15. 3.2 sec delay in startup-sequence.
Clean install. My A1200 has a Cobra 030 installed.
Upgrade to 3.1.4.1 and add the argument NODRIVELEDPATCH to the SetPatch command in your S:Startup-Sequence.
patrik is offline  
Old 01 August 2019, 09:40   #62
AmigaHope
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Sandusky
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrik View Post
Example test runs:
Code:
9.Ram Disk:> SYS:UHC/C/time echo test
test
0.056383s
9.Ram Disk:> SYS:UHC/C/time wait 1
1.060052s
9.Ram Disk:> SYS:UHC/C/time wait 3
3.090985s
9.Ram Disk:> SYS:UHC/C/time wait 10
10.164959s
Not related to SetPatch, but is something wrong with your system clock? "wait 10" taking 10.16 seconds to complete seems incredibly wrong. Then again maybe the stock wait command isis just really badly written. The reason I wonder about your system clock is because the error seems to scale with the length of time you're running wait. It's almost as if the system clock and system bus crystal are mismatched.
AmigaHope is offline  
Old 01 August 2019, 18:21   #63
patrik
Registered User
patrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Umeå
Age: 39
Posts: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmigaHope View Post
Not related to SetPatch, but is something wrong with your system clock? "wait 10" taking 10.16 seconds to complete seems incredibly wrong. Then again maybe the stock wait command isis just really badly written. The reason I wonder about your system clock is because the error seems to scale with the length of time you're running wait. It's almost as if the system clock and system bus crystal are mismatched.
What is measured is the execution time of the Wait command. Apart from the actual waiting, this time will also include loading the Wait executable into ram plus any initialization/cleanup.

Wait can only guarantee that execution takes at least the time you specify.

Also, as this is a multitasking system, the execution time of a command will vary somewhat.

So you should always expect a greater execution time of Wait than the time you specified.

With that said, it is interesting that the measured time has a greater difference between the wait time specified and the time measured, the longer wait time you specify.
patrik is offline  
Old 09 September 2019, 14:53   #64
Mark sealey
Registered User

Mark sealey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 270
Ive found this problem too...replaced 314 Setpatch with 3.9 last night....no lag in booting.....020 Furia
Mark sealey is offline  
Old 09 September 2019, 16:59   #65
gulliver
BoingBagged

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 41
Posts: 1,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark sealey View Post
Ive found this problem too...replaced 314 Setpatch with 3.9 last night....no lag in booting.....020 Furia
Dont do that!

The 3.9 setpatch does not apply some fixes and has a few bugs of its own compared to the 3.1.4.1 version.

They are not meant to be interchangeable.
gulliver is offline  
Old 09 September 2019, 17:28   #66
Mark sealey
Registered User

Mark sealey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by gulliver View Post
Dont do that!

The 3.9 setpatch does not apply some fixes and has a few bugs of its own compared to the 3.1.4.1 version.

They are not meant to be interchangeable.

Thanks for the reply....ant idea what the bug fixes were...seems to work so far.
Mark sealey is offline  
Old 10 September 2019, 01:24   #67
gulliver
BoingBagged

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 41
Posts: 1,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark sealey View Post
Thanks for the reply....ant idea what the bug fixes were...seems to work so far.
This is a small list that I can remember now, there is much more than
this, but I am not at home to take a look at the changelog
(also remember that the 3.9 setpatch is buggy).

So, the 3.1.4.1 SetPatch:

-Fixes audio.device bad channel allocation (doomsnd.library)
-Fixes shell FAILAT bug
-Patches gfx/Draw() bug
-Patches ExAll() bug
-Fixes for graphics/EraseRect().
-Fix for cardres/CardForceChange()
-Fixes some return parameters
-Tests and fixes UMult64/SMult64
-Fixes a bug in Alert 0x0100000f
-It enables proper use of the scsi.device LED
-It properly handles the 680?0.library
-It properly manages the FPU
-It can properly manage the system mathlibs
-It allows a 68060 to run and not crash

Also NSDPatch was removed as it was rather useless and a lot of dead
code went out too.

And have in mind that this is what I remember right now, there is for
sure more to it.

So again, don't use SetPatch from 3.9 in 3.1.4.1. :-)
gulliver is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SetPatch / CacheControl() dissident Coders. System 17 04 March 2018 17:01
Setpatch 3.9 Romupdate Yes or No ? Nibbler support.Hardware 0 06 February 2015 22:31
setpatch option andreas request.UAE Wishlist 4 13 August 2008 16:21
SetPatch: Unloading possible? mrleeman support.Apps 1 21 July 2008 10:06
where can i find setpatch 44.38 turrican3 request.Apps 5 07 May 2007 19:46

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:38.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.06675 seconds with 13 queries