Boost logo

Boost :

From: Philippe Vaucher (philippe.vaucher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-31 12:42:44


>
> Is that really the case? Microsoft's own documentation states:
>
> "The default precision of the timeGetTime function can be five
> milliseconds or more, depending on the machine. You can use the
> timeBeginPeriod and timeEndPeriod functions to increase [snipped]

microsec_clock doens't use timeGetTime()... it uses GetSystemTime() if I
remember correctly.
QueryPerformanceCounter has indeed a better resolution than timeGetTime(),
it also has less overhead... but unfortunately I don't know how it compares
to GetSystemTime(). I will have to run some tests to determinate.

At the moment my code offers :

   - microsec_timer, which uses boost::posix_time::microsec_clock which
   is itself based on GetSystemTime on windows and gettimeofday() on linux. I
   think that'd be the timer that most of the users should use.
    - second_timer, which uses boost::posix_time::second_clock, which I
   forgot what it was using.
   - qcp_timer, only available under windows, which uses
   QueryPerformanceCounter.
   - tgt_timer, only available under windows, which uses timeGetTime.

And then I plan to add clock_timer which would use std::clock... about
GetTickCount() I don't think it'd be worth adding it as it's the worse win32
timer that exists.

I'll give a shot to the nvidia timer test thing in the next days.

Philippe


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk