From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-16 07:27:58
Johan Nilsson wrote:
>> I'm not sure which clock do you mean when you say that a thread can't
>> sleep for less than a clock tick. If you mean the CPU clock, then
>> yes, a no-op Sleep function that returns immediately would probably
>> consume more than one clock tick, so it is impossible to make a
>> thread sleep for less.
> I referred to the timer tick period (~10-15 ms for the NT family).
It used to be the case that you can't get better than 10ms precision on NT
without calling timeBeginPeriod, but that was years ago, I think (NT 3.5,
not sure about 4). I'm getting ms-precise timing (not hard realtime,
obviously, but correct most of the time) on Windows XP.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk