From: michael bode <m.g.bode@web.de>
Subject: Re: Strange behaviour of delay in Windows XP
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 07:33:59 +0200
Date: 2010-10-08T07:33:59+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <i8mag8$egc$1@news.eternal-september.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <i8lnrd$2mh$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Am 08.10.2010 02:15, schrieb Randy Brukardt:
> I have no ideas about your specific problem, but we found when building Claw
> that delays were quite unreliable on Windows. One compiler insisted on
> delaying a full clock tick (0.1s) even for "delay 0.0;" (used to mean
> "yield"; Ada 2012 will actually have a call named "yield") -- this was a
> disaster as we were using it in the primary message loop (adding 0.1s per
> message slowed apps to a crawl). All were inaccurate to some extent or
> another. All were improved to some extent or another after we filed bug
> reports.
I wouldn't complain about one clock tick or 100ms. But 1700ms is really
too much.
> It wouldn't be hard to do something in an implementation of "delay" that
> caused a time explosion in some case or another.
Does a relative delay do more than call something like usleep(3) or
whatever is the corresponding Win32 API?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-08 5:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-07 21:04 Strange behaviour of delay in Windows XP michael bode
2010-10-07 21:35 ` Vinzent Hoefler
2010-10-07 22:10 ` michael bode
2010-10-07 22:37 ` Jeffrey Carter
2010-10-08 5:18 ` michael bode
2010-10-08 10:13 ` michael bode
2010-10-08 0:15 ` Randy Brukardt
2010-10-08 5:33 ` michael bode [this message]
2010-10-09 6:42 ` Randy Brukardt
2010-10-09 8:18 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2010-10-26 1:50 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2010-10-08 7:54 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox