Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC] Scheduled Executors beta 1 release
From: Ian Forbes (ian.forbes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-07-26 14:02:55

>> This defaults to `boost::chrono::steady_clock`. There is a static assert to ensure that `Clock` is steady.

>Given that you restrict everything to steady clocks, What's the
>rationale for restricting to a single `time_point` instantiation only?
>Furthermore, restricting to a single `duration` makes absolutely no
>sense. Any `duration` can be mapped to a steady `time_point` and still
>meet the timing specifications.

This seems to be a popular request. I will look into it.

>> This is also satisfied by `high_resolution_clock` (...)
> It is not.

>> (...) is no longer a factor like with `steady_clock` and `high_resolution_clock` which are wall clocks.

>They are not (or may not be). The only guarantees are that
>`system_clock` represents a wall clock, `steady_clock` represents a
>clock that may not be adjusted, `high_resolution_clock` represents a
>clock with the shortest tick period. In particular, `steady_clock` and
>`high_resolution_clock` may be aliases for other clocks.

It's not guaranteed but I would assume it is steady for most modern machines.
For example:

#include <iostream>
#include <boost/chrono.hpp>
using namespace boost::chrono;
int main()
    std::cout << system_clock::is_steady << std::endl;
    std::cout << steady_clock::is_steady << std::endl;
    std::cout << high_resolution_clock::is_steady << std::endl;
    std::cout << process_user_cpu_clock::is_steady << std::endl;
    std::cout << process_system_cpu_clock::is_steady << std::endl;
    std::cout << process_real_cpu_clock::is_steady << std::endl;

    std::cout << thread_clock::is_steady << std::endl;

Outputs this for me on Linux 3.13 with a Core2 cpu.


That means I can essentially pick from 6 clocks. And the cpu/thread clocks might be useful.

>I've glanced at the code, and noticed that `time_point`s and `duration`s
>are taken by value. The standard takes them by `const&` so I think you
>should follow that.

This is an oversight on my part. I will fix this.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at