Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:18:30 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Sisco, Michael" <mdsisco AT qtiworld DOT com>
cc: "Djgpp (E-mail)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: Fw: uclock() within an interrupt handler
In-Reply-To: <BDD73AE8AEE3EF438E07420C2600E9F65C9151@qtiexch0.qgraph.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020919151814.2289J-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Sisco, Michael wrote:

> At startup, I spend one second and use uclock() together with the RDTSC
> macro (read
> time stamp counter) to quite accurately calculate the processor speed. I
> then use RDTSC any time I need a precise time within my interrupt handler.
> This seems
> to work very well (with the added benefit that RDTSC is significantly faster
> than
> uclock()).
> 
> Do you see any problems with this approach?

Sounds okay.