Author: Vincent Lejeune
Date: 04:30:48 10/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 1999 at 16:43:37, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 08, 1999 at 06:14:23, Vincent Lejeune wrote: > >>On October 08, 1999 at 04:16:57, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On October 08, 1999 at 03:42:54, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>>On October 07, 1999 at 23:29:05, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>That's a real problem on PC. >>>>> >>>>>The timer clicks 65536 times in 1 hour, which makes something close to 18.2 >>>>>times per second, or a 0.05s timer resolution. >>>>> >>>>>This numbers come from the prehistoric IBM PC 4.77MHz and have never been >>>>>changed in 20 years, for compatibility reasons. >>>>> >>>>>Even Windows programmers did not dare to change this. You have time functions in >>>>>Windows, they returns values in milliseconds, but still the resolution is about >>>>>0.05s!!! >>>> >>>>Use performance tick counts if you develop for Win32. (Actually, I am not 100% >>>>sure that Win98 supports them. :-( WinNT does for sure.) Their resolution is >>>>very good. >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>>Not sure this works. In the experiences I have done, the timer resolution was >>>always 0.05s. I'm pressimistic about getting something more accurate under >>>Windows 9x. >>> >>>This is not a big problem anyway... >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>I've tested the gettickcount() Win32 api, it's documented as have a 1 >>millisecond time resolution and it have it effectivly. >> >>The win32 functions are usable in all Windows programming language (C++ (Borland >>and Microsoft), Delphi, ...) > > >Good to know. Thanks. > > > Christophe the gettickcount() function have one little drawback: it's a 32 bits variable. So every (about) 47 days, the counter going back to 0, you need to add simple test if the gettickcount()-starttime is < 0.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.