Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Message-ID: <003501c17dce$b53a8210$7add18ac@amr.corp.intel.com> From: "Tim Prince" To: "Ralf Habacker" , "Cygwin" References: <006401c17cd6$3c9e2fd0$9a5f07d5@BRAMSCHE> Subject: Re: Old Thread: Cygwin Performance Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 12:36:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim Prince [mailto:tprince@computer.org] > > Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 10:58 PM > > To: Ralf Habacker > > Cc: Cygwin > > Subject: Re: Old Thread: Cygwin Performance > > > > The QueryPerformance() calls are still giving 1.00 second timing resolution on an AthlonMP box (should be better than 10 microseconds on most other boxes, with correct usage), but their use appears to be truer to the original lmbench than the cygwin gettimeofday() with its 1.00 second resolution. I believed there were deficiencies in the way lmbench uses QueryPerformance(), preserving only 31 bits of clock ticks from the time of initialization, but I didn't succeed in showing any better way. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/