Re: [boost] Low-level precision timer proposal - Part II

From: Martin Slater (mslater_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-18 09:54:11

> Actually there are some usages where one wants the cycle count, rather
> than the elapsed time, so I was thinking to provide a cpu_cycle_timer
> (that's not a "timer" in the strict sense but seems to fit in the
> framework) anyway. Of course the elapsed time is just the cycle count
> divided by the frequency, if the frequency is fixed. I'll see in the

Yep sounds good, for profiling real small functions you really dont want 
to lose the precision by dividing in the frequency.

> Intel docs if it is possible to detect SpeedStep activation (you won't
> believe what the processor is actually able to tell you :)) or if
> other solutions exist.

I hope your successful ;) A good guide to pc timers you may not have 
seen is here http://www.mindcontrol.org/~hplus/pc-timers.html which has 
some good ideas for a stable timer on windows x86

hth

Martin

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/390 - Release Date: 17/07/2006