From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-17 21:05:55
At 03:08 PM 2/10/2005, christopher diggins wrote:
>> The thing is that boost::timer is not good enough for many non-trivial
>> profiling tasks (and it was discussed here on ML many times). Overflow
>> one of the major issues for example. So without larger time type you
>> couldn't get around it's deficiencies.
>It is not a bad idea then to update the timer resolution. However, I find
>it strange that the expectations on the Profiler library would be greater
>than those placed on the Boost.Timer library.
Jeff Garland and I have discussed replacing the Boost.Timer library by
adding a new timer component in the date-time library. The Boost.Timer
design isn't how we would tackle the problem today. There is or was a
wiki-page discussing some of the issues, but I'm not finding it at the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk