Date:	Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:23:21 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
Message-Id:	<2427-Fri13Jul2001222318+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<3B4F3D5B.C711C042@cyberoptics.com> (message from Eric Rudd on
	Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:26:35 -0500)
Subject:	Re: uclock limitations
References:	<3b4dba10 DOT 22636569 AT news DOT mbnet DOT fi> <2593-Fri13Jul2001202516+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3B4F3D5B DOT C711C042 AT cyberoptics DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> From: Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:26:35 -0500
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that `uclock' returns a value of the type uclock_t, which is
> > defined as long long.  That's a 64-bit quantity, and since `uclock's
> > resolution is 840 nanoseconds, the 64-bit type overflows in about 48 hours.
> 
> I haven't tried using uclock() to time long intervals, but overflow of the
> 64-bit quantity is not the problem, since 840ns * 2^64 = 1.5E+13 seconds =
> 50000 years.

Sorry, I should have looked at the sources before talking.

The problem is not overflow, of course, but the fact that `uclock'
doesn't look at the system date, for performance reasons.  So if you
time a very long interval by calling `uclock' once before and once
after, you cannot tolerate more than one midnight between these two
events, because there's no way of knowing how many midnights passed.

> Back when people were first having problems with uclock(), I switched over to
> using an rdtsc-based timer.  It is not as portable as uclock(), so I haven't
> proposed it to the DJGPP developers as a replacement, but it has performed
> well for me.
> 
> rdtsc measures in processor clocks instead of seconds, but one can get around
> that problem by timing the rdtsc timer against rawclock() for a couple of
> ticks on the first call to the timer, which enables one to estimate the CPU
> clock rate.
> 
> If there is interest in this style of timing, I would consider submitting the
> code.

I'm not sure I understand the issues (does someone really needs to
time long periods with sub-microsecond resolution? is RDTSC accurate
enough, given the calibration of the processor speed?), but if you
think it will be useful, please send the code.

- Raw text -