Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 63294 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jul 2002 03:39:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 63283 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2002 03:39:54 -0000 Reply-To: From: "Emery Berger" To: "'APR Development List'" Cc: "'Justin Erenkrantz'" Subject: RE: more notes on the apr_time_t issue Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:40:09 -0500 Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Message-ID: <000701c22bb1$51f3e7a0$5b801942@ristretto> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <20020715032353.GA27727@apache.org> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 07:54:23PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > BTW, nsec is completely bogus. There isn't an OS that I know of that > > reports nsec intervals. Windows comes the closest with 100 nsec chunks, > FWIW, you can do better on Windows with QueryPerformanceFrequency & QueryPerformanceCounter. These give you time measurements accurate to one clock tick, so you can get 1 ns accuracy for a 1GHz chip. -- Emery -- Emery Berger Assistant Professor (starting Fall 2002) Dept. of Computer Science University of Massachusetts, Amherst www.cs.utexas.edu/users/emery