Re: [boost] Low-level precision timer proposal

From: Silex (silex0r_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-15 16:00:56

> Correct, but that's the problem IIUC.  The CPU's clock speed got cut
> by 50% during the thermal throttling, and then increased after the CPU
> cooled down, however QPF kept happily returning the same value the
> entire time.  Google on SpeedStep and QPF.

Right, ok so we have different problems here :

QueryPerformanceCounter:
- pros: no need to link to additional libs, lower overhead
- cons: might bug with CPU's clock speed changes

timeGetTime:
-pros: should always have the same accuracy
-cons: requires linking to winmm.lib

I think I'll try to do two windows implementation for the template
parameter of the timer class, one with QueryPerformanceCounter and one
with timeGetTime which would try to #pragram comment(lib,etc) it.

The question that comes is that the design proposed until now poses a
logical problem when it comes to the implementation: If the template
param is a clock class, then using QueryPerformanceCounter/timeGetTime
etc is a problem as it's not really related to the current time.

I'll think more about it and propose something.

Philippe