Re: [boost] [chrono] steady_clock efficiency

Subject: Re: [boost] [chrono] steady_clock efficiency
From: Kenneth Porter (shiva.blacklist_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-30 00:10:24

Kenneth Porter <shiva.blacklist_at_[hidden]> wrote in 
news:Xns9FACBC567FEF9shivawellcom_at_80.91.229.10:

> So about 650 nanoseconds using a 32-bit build on Vista 64 Ultimate.

I recoded now() to eliminate the math with no improvement. The Windows API 
call totally dominates the time spent, so there's no significant savings to 
deferring the conversion.

The lower numbers on XP may be due to it being single-core, and not needing 
to deal with which core is reading the counters. My Vista system is dual-
core and I understand there's logic in the API to worry about that.