Date: 2001-03-22 15:36:38
--- In boost_at_y..., Toon Knapen <toon_at_s...> wrote:
> Beman Dawes wrote:
> > At 10:12 PM 3/21/2001, Jeremy Siek wrote:
> > >I agree that a high resolution timer is needed. One quick way
> > >this is just to use the various high resolution timers that
> > >exist... wrapping them with a common interface. And the best
part is that
> > >someone's already done this (in C). The Interval Performance
> > >(IPM) package does this. It is part of the PHiPAC high-speed
> > >multiplication package. IPM is portable to most unix's.
> > >package could be a good place to start.
> > The proposal that Bill Kempf pointed out
> > (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/c-time/) is of special interest
> > was put together by people active on the C language committee for
> > inclusion in a future C standard.
> > That doesn't mean Boost shouldn't look at other proposals - even
> > committee has looked at other proposals. But in thinking about a
> > boostified C++ interface, it might be nice to coordinate with
the C folks
> > to avoid gratuitous conflicts. I'll drop Marcus Kuhn an email to
> > interest exists.
> Implementing the (future) C interface reusing the code/technology
> from IPM would make life easy, future safe and powerfull.
Yes, but we don't know what the "(future) C interface" is going to
be. This is what Beman wants to find out before going too far with
this idea, I believe.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk