Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/07/07/19:18:06
Rolf Campbell wrote:
> Nate Eldredge wrote:
> > There is also the
> > CPU's timestamp counter, if you have a Pentium or K5 or better-- it's
> > accurate to within one clock of your CPU (between 2 and 10 ns depending
> > on the CPU speed). Ask me if you want more info on this.
> That can have problems under windows as well. I've got rediculous
> results under Win95/3.1 occasionally.
Presumably because your program is scheduled out. You'll have problems
like that under any multitasking OS, unless it provides some way to find
the CPU time used by a process (and this is typically accurate only to
the nearest timeslice, which is usually *at least* 1 ms).
But yes, you are right. High-precision timing should really be done on
a single-tasking platform, like plain DOS.
nate AT cartsys DOT com
- Raw text -