From: Johan Nilsson (johan.nilsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-27 06:43:52
"Russell Hind" <rhind_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Alisdair Meredith wrote:
> > Russell Hind wrote:
> >>I agree with that. Would it be better to make it a millisec_clock, or
> >>just use the microsec_clock but the resolution is only milliseconds?
> > WinAPI Note: we can get a higher resolution using the
> > QueryPerformanceCounter API (and QueryPerformanceFrequency if resolution
> > info is required)
> Can these be used to get an actual date/time though? Or just for high
> resolution timing? I've only had a brief look at them, so will read a
> bit more.
Yes and yes. But the former (using them to get an actual date/time with a
_low_ overhead) is ... well ... interesting ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk