From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-20 20:46:31
At 06:44 AM 5/20/2003, Robin Hu wrote:
> I once mentioned boost::timer behaviors different in different
> platform in this maillist, and Beman said that's the problem of
> microsoft himself, because it's he who failed to conform to the
> standard. (Hi Beman, am I right? ).
Yep, the C standard says "The clock function returns the implementation's
best approximation to the processor time used by the program..."
I wouldn't say wall-clock time (as returned by Windows C libraries) is the
"best approximation", since the platform does support processor time
> But I think such measurement is used so often, that we shouldnt leave
> this problem alone. I'd prefer to refine timer to process_timer and
> walltime_timer, and each behaviors the same on different platforms.
I agree with you that we should really have separate timers for processing
time and wall-clock time.
But I would also like to nail down some of the other specifications. As
Toon points out, the behavior of clock() as regards wraparound is really
> Here's my simple implementation of new timers, which should work on
> both linux and windows nt. I hope you'll intested in this idea and
> give some comments. Thanks.
Let's look more seriously at the Boost Date-Time library first. I don't
want to make any changes to Boost timer without first understanding the
pros and cons of basing timers on Date-Time.
Do keep pestering me if there isn't more progress on these issues in the
next week or two!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk