From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,89d65c5ea403ba58 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dmitry6243@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: System Clock update rate of 0.055 milliseconds in DOS/Win95 and Ada.Calendar Date: 1999/01/13 Message-ID: <77hno2$8hh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 432047828 References: <01be3c40$f93dc120$3804fbd1@longslide> <36984F3F.FA6C58C3@grep.net> <77aapg$cnj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x5.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 212.202.33.196 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 13 09:07:17 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) Date: 1999-01-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Tom Moran wrote: > Win95 has a system call to release the CPU until a certain time. > That time has a 55ms resolution. So, without fancy footwork, you > can't get interrupts with smaller resolution. I think NT sets > the interrupt time to 10ms. Of course, if the system decides to > flush the disk cache or something, it may be quite a bit longer > before you get the CPU. However it is possible (with heavy performance penalty!) to diminish the clock resolution up to 1 ms under NT (see timeBeginPeriod from winmm.dll). I didn't find it in Win32 bindings, but I believe it should not be a great problem. Dmitry Kazakov -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own