Re: [boost] Low-level precision timer proposal

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-13 18:36:18

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:56:08 +0200, "Philippe Vaucher"
<philippe.vaucher_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>My question is about where to place this new timer class, there were
>suggestion to remove boost::timer entirely and move it into
>boost::date_time, if so, where ? as it uses boost::posix_time::ptime as
>default argument I guessed boost::posix_timer::timer ?

I guess the whole component has to go through a fast track review, at
least

 <http://www.boost.org/more/formal_review_process.htm#Fast-Track>

At a first glance there are a couple of points which perplex me, for
instance the auto_start/manual_start option. Also, wouldn't an
std::clock() based Clock be worth having anyway? AFAICS, only a Win32
Clock is provided. What I've found with some experiments (I was
writing a timer template myself) is that though std::clock() has
obvious limitations, and though we are probably all waiting for this

 <http://david.tribble.com/text/c0xtimet.htm>

the biggest problem is with those implementations (guess which one(s)?
:)) that think it has to yield wall-clock time rather than process
time. However for those implementation(s) one might use (guess what?)
qpc_clock. It would also be useful to make a quick comparison with an
implementation based on GetProcessTimes(), if this hasn't already been
discussed. Don't be too formal, just a couple of sentences for us to
understand :)

--
[ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]
[    resume:  available on request      ]