[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: RE: Off topic: Win32 time function
- From: Enrico Colombini <erix@...>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:15:31 +0200
>These might be deceiving.
>The count returned might be in 1000 ticks per second, but
>the actual resolution might be way less than that.
>
>Vincent Penquerc'h
You are right. I wrote this to check it out:
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
printf("%ld, ", clock());
}
The result (Borland C++ Builder 3, Windows 98) on my machine is:
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,
2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4,
4, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,
10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14,
18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18,
So the actual resolution seems to be approx. 2 ms, unless I am mistaken.
Enrico