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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,349427c451f66022
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.datemas.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: michael bode <m.g.bode@web.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Strange behaviour of delay in Windows XP
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 07:18:57 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <i8m9k2$e6f$1@news.eternal-september.org>
References: <i8lcl2$f0i$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <i8li6b$m9d$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 05:18:58 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="Fmek1ch0Wr3fNUwTvw+eHg";
	logging-data="14543"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xmFriyrW2HvHpjQ/mauQkbfod5segK8Q="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.0.8
In-Reply-To: <i8li6b$m9d$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vbMfxEMxPLGmuWLHnBMCmqPNAeM=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14430
Date: 2010-10-08T07:18:57+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Am 08.10.2010 00:37, schrieb Jeffrey Carter:

> The relative delay is inherently imprecise; add that to the lousy timing
> on Windows and such results are not as surprising as they should be. 

I've seen that Windows has a larger error than Linux (<15ms vs. <1ms) in
the cases that I call 'working'. But really: 1.7s timing error in a 1s
delay? Is it *that* bad?

> Try
> 
> delay until T1 + D;
> 
> and see if that makes a difference.

Yepp, I will try that.