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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Strange behaviour of delay in Windows XP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <i8lcl2$f0i$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <i8lnrd$2mh$1@munin.nbi.dk> <i8mag8$egc$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <i8p2tf$cl9$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 10:18:22 +0200
Message-ID: <ndp216n00fk2$.1eil4e3haxq6t$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 09 Oct 2010 10:18:19 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: c943e95a.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=][fWTB7T:be:i=48;n?Z:`A9EHlD;3Ycb4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOk:_HW7N^`Sjh[6LHn;2LCVn[<mhadbfdUkN081afTFgZf]GQ:EUkmA@d
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14464
Date: 2010-10-09T10:18:19+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 01:42:54 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> In Janus/Ada, I had to write code to busy-wait if the delay time is less 
> than 0.1s; we only call Sleep if the delay time is longer. (That doesn't 
> always work right, either, but I'm not quite sure why.)

Call timeBeginPeriod (1) somewhere upon elaboration of Claw, and then you
will be able to wait for 1ms. Note that it is not just Sleep, which depends
on this setting, actually all waitable timers and scheduling are. The
effect of timeBeginPeriod is global (I like Windows (:-)), which is not
bad, unless you have some 66MHz i486.

P.S. I think it is 1ms since Windows XP.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de