Ralf Habacker wrote:
> Lapo Luchini writes:
> > > isn't the time slice about 10ms. ?
> > Actually is between 15 and 16ms:
> > try 2: 437703512 - 437719512 = 16000
> > try 3: 437719512 - 437734512 = 15000
> Thats my result on a toshiba Satelitte Pro 4300 Laptop with win2000
> try 1: -347828856
Lapo Luchini writes:
>
> > > I adapted the code to find exactly the minimum time slice, and not "how well
> > > 1ms of retard is seen" (it was a 0ns or 15000ns, this is always 15000ns;
> > > moreover printf is out of the "timing" section):
> > isn't the time slice about 10ms. ?
>
> Actually is
>
> >
> >
> > > Hmm. I do remember this patch. Can you submit this to cygwin-patches
> > > in the correct format: http://cygwin.com/contrib.html ?
> >
> > Given enough time, yes (never hacked that one, but it seems that only
> > winsup/cygwin/times.cc would need to be modified).. anyway of cour
> > I adapted the code to find exactly the minimum time slice, and not "how well
> > 1ms of retard is seen" (it was a 0ns or 15000ns, this is always 15000ns;
> > moreover printf is out of the "timing" section):
> isn't the time slice about 10ms. ?
Actually is between 15 and 16ms:
try 1: 4376875
> > would give 3-4 microsecond precision on "deltas" but an initial uncertainty of
> ^
> > the usual 15 milliseconds or so.
> >
> This is a output of the mentioned profiler. It say about a minimal time of about 1-2
>us. May the difference be
> caused by the cygwin.dll overhead ?
>
>
> > Hmm. I do remember this patch. Can you submit this to cygwin-patches
> > in the correct format: http://cygwin.com/contrib.html ?
>
> Given enough time, yes (never hacked that one, but it seems that only
> winsup/cygwin/times.cc would need to be modified).. anyway of course I'm one of
> t
>
> > >> Has anyone address this problem already. I have looked int the
> > >> cygwin and list and found the only topic
> > >http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2001-12/msg00201.html
>
> In the attached file there is a "patch" for gettmieofday:
>
> ---
> int gettimeofday(struct timeval *tv,
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 11:43:10AM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
>> >> Do you have an assignment on file with Red Hat?
>> >Sorry but english knowledge doesn't let me understand "assignment on file", could
>> >you explain it to me with other words?
>> http://cygwin.com/contrib.html
>
>Got it... I'll s
> >> Do you have an assignment on file with Red Hat?
> >Sorry but english knowledge doesn't let me understand "assignment on file", could
> >you explain it to me with other words?
> http://cygwin.com/contrib.html
Got it... I'll send one ASAP (-_- snail mail... when will a signed e-mail be accepte
> As long as the calibration only occurs when someone is using
> gettimeofday, not on every cygwin1.dll load, then that sounds fine to
> me.
I wouldn't call it "calibration" is just a quick call to the old
gettimeofday() and, yes, it's done only on the first call (the value is
retanied in a stati
===
- Original Message -
From: "Lapo Luchini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: gettimeofday() does not returns usec resolution
> > Hmm. I do remember this patch. Can you submit this to
cygwi
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 02:34:44AM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
>> Do you have an assignment on file with Red Hat?
>
>Sorry but english knowledge doesn't let me understand "assignment on file", could
>you explain it to me with other words?
http://cygwin.com/contrib.html
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info:
> Hmm. I do remember this patch. Can you submit this to cygwin-patches
> in the correct format: http://cygwin.com/contrib.html ?
Given enough time, yes (never hacked that one, but it seems that only
winsup/cygwin/times.cc would need to be modified).. anyway of course I'm one of
the few that act
13 matches
Mail list logo
