Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Original-Recipient: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
From: "Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail)" <garbage_collector AT telia DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: struct timeval : accuracy of tv_usec
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:31:02 +0200
Message-ID: <NGBBLLIAMFLGJEOAJCCEEEACCPAA.garbage_collector@telia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
In-Reply-To: <b8ibo1$btm$1@main.gmane.org>
Importance: Normal

> From: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com [mailto:cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com]On Behalf
> Of Alex Vinokur

--8<--
> Here is some program and results of its run.
>
> Is 'accuracy of tv_usec' is microseconds here ?
> We can see the almost 2000 prints have the same tv_usec value.
--8<--

 Don't expect too much. The measure might be in microseconds, but
not even native APIs have true "accuracy" in milliseconds.
Cygwin is an emulated environment, though close to native.

Only RTOS'es guarantee any kind of accuracy - normally in milliseconds.

OLD FACTS:
The original 80's PC had an 18.2Hz interrupt driven software clock, though
it ran at 4.77MHz.

/Hannu E K Nevalainen, Mariefred, Sweden

--END OF MESSAGE--


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/