Would someone with a Quadra 700/900/950 be willing to test a program for me?

[dougg3]

Is that not the new one I'm running? Did you update the code with a new one?

Sorry, it got buried in my long technical details. Yes, after you posted your first result today, I posted a new one with a small tweak to the logic that will hopefully make things work differently. (Unless you already saw that and the latest results are testing that version!)

 

[Callan]

Nope... I read the your description and somehow missed the start of the paragraph (sigh). Here are a couple with the new one. I've run it over 15 times now and the fifo is staying the same.

 

[dougg3]

Nope... I read the your description and somehow missed the start of the paragraph (sigh). Here are a couple with the new one. I've run it over 15 times now and the fifo is staying the same.

Thanks! Rats, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why it's doing that. Is the original ASCTester v3 still looking the same each time with (1 1) (1 1) (0 0) (2 2) 1 at the bottom?

 

[Callan]

Original version 3 (non se/30 specific) reports (multiple runs)
(1 1),(1,1),(0 0) (5 5), 1
(1 1),(1,1),(0 0) (2 2), 1
(1 1),(2,1),(0 0) (4 4), 1
(1 1),(1,1),(0 0) (2 2), 1
(1 1),(1,1),(0 0) (4 4), 1
(1 1),(1,1),(0 0) (3 3), 1
And another wrench...
(2 2),(1,1),(0 0) (1 1), 1
(Was moving the mouse while this last one tested)

 

[dougg3]

Original version 3 (non se/30 specific) reports (multiple runs)

Thank you for being so kind and putting up with all my requests, and so quickly too! Those results seem fairly consistent at least, so that’s good. The only thing I can think of is maybe calling Microseconds() in the IRQ handler is not allowed and I’m breaking things by trying. Maybe I should just try Ticks for measuring the time and see what happens.

I’ll sleep on it and try to come up with another test idea!