Sender: nate AT cartsys DOT com Message-ID: <3783DF62.C3168FF@cartsys.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 16:14:42 -0700 From: Nate Eldredge X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Timing References: <377CC7E6 DOT EB82B079 AT hotmail DOT com> <377E4A2D DOT F023FABE AT cartsys DOT com> <3782058F DOT 8F1D0834 AT americasm01 DOT nt DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com 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 Eldredge nate AT cartsys DOT com