RE: [boost] boost.timer

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-31 17:15:32

> I'm inclined to think the solution may not be to try to fix timer, but
> to specify a new timing library with much more precise semantics.
>
> If Jeff Garland is reading this, I'd be curious if his date and time
> classes would solve the problem.  I know they can handle very large
> granularity (100 year, for example, used in measuring geological time), but
> I don't remember if they can handle very small time periods, and what they
> do if the hardware timers can't deliver the precision desired.

Yes, the Time part of the Generic Date Time Library (GDTL) has an adjustable
precision.  So you can have a time_duration with a precision to nano-seconds (or
whatever you want to pay for).  The real problem, however, is what the
hardware/software clocks can actually deliver.  My library doesn't do anything
to address that.  Just as an aside, I don't have a timer in GDTL at this point,
but it would probably be a logical home for this functionality...

Jeff