[Openmcl-devel] CCL 1.9 release candidate available
wade.humeniuk at gmail.com
Wed Feb 6 19:43:08 CST 2013
Scratch all that I said. On reflection, forget about getting any awesome resolution unless you have a dedicated atomic clock, a whole other OS and mega dollars to spend.
It seems some things are just not worth fretting over.
On 2013-02-06, at 3:08 PM, "R. Matthew Emerson" <rme at clozure.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Alexander Repenning <Alexander.Repenning at colorado.edu> wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 2013, at 1:48 PM, R. Matthew Emerson wrote:
>>> On Feb 6, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Alexander Repenning <alexander.repenning at Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>>> from the release notes:
>>>>> access to high-resolution clock
>>>>> CCL:CURRENT-TIME-IN-NANOSECONDS returns the number of elapsed nanoseconds since some arbitrary point in time (likely system boot.)
>>>> This sounds very useful. What is the approximate resolution of this function on Windows, i.e., what kind of Windows timer function is this based on?
>>> Pressing M-. on current-time-in-nanoseconds leads me to its definition in ccl:lib;time.lisp. On Windows, that function uses #_GetSystemTimeAsFileTime.
>> I was afraid of that because on most Windows systems, certainly XP, that would suggest a 15ms resolution which is rather disappointing.
> If you know of a Windows function that that would provide superior results, I'd love to hear about it.
> QueryPerformanceCounter() is not a good solution. It requires a lot of effort to compensate for its limitations. See, for example, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=676349
> Openmcl-devel mailing list
> Openmcl-devel at clozure.com
More information about the Openmcl-devel