X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:19:39 -0600 From: Brian Ford Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: strange bug in gettimeofday function In-Reply-To: <45CFD856.10106@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <1562006224 DOT 20070211192014 AT gnu DOT org> <45CFD856 DOT 10106 AT gmail DOT com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Carlo Florendo wrote: > Windows could be accurate up to 15 ms or perhaps a little bit more. > However, it is very difficult to achieve less than 15 ms or microsecond > accuracy with windows due to the limitation on the OS itself. Our > extensive tests on windows clocks and timers reveal that windows cannot > be accurate to the microsecond level or below 15 ms. > > In any case, in my experience, windows cannot be accurate with a > precision of up to 15 milliseconds. I'm sorry, could you repeat that value one more time, just in case someone missed it ;-). Anyway, I don't think it is relevant to the original thread's question, but I can assure you that Windows can be used for accurate timings in down to 1 or 2 ms (depending on the OS version). I'm not exactly sure what your definition of accurate is. And, for the OP, I haven't ever seen this behavior from gettimeofday. -- Brian Ford Lead Realtime Software Engineer VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems FlightSafety International the best safety device in any aircraft is a well-trained crew... -- 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/