Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Even more problems with lcc-win
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:28:05 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <lnh92d5pt6.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <ob2s0r$nl7$1@dont-email.me> <ob3b4m$ce7$1@dont-email.me> <ob3mgd$lj7$1@dont-email.me> <AldBA.41789$%b1.36860@fx21.iad> <ob3tfo$ev2$1@dont-email.me> <lnmvca8kq3.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <ob428f$c2$1@dont-email.me> <ob43jr$51m$1@dont-email.me> <ob44h7$82q$1@dont-email.me> <ob4cjc$3mt$1@dont-email.me> <ob4gcs$d7m$1@dont-email.me> <ke6dncR_34w1U0XFnZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> <obaq43$bb9$1@dont-email.me> <5f2dnZm7l7YU8UTFnZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> <OofCA.186700$fL.181126@fx24.am4> <a2df871d-0b3e-45ac-83d4-03d72e016ffe@googlegroups.com> <sggCA.318572$8b6.246389@fx19.am4> <34af2a35-94cf-420a-bbec-01a4f4302050@googlegroups.com> <WBsCA.693042$Pm3.275418@fx42.am4> <obdnpa$fae$1@dont-email.me> <obe0ir$fcu$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="621a15f5f24560a56e85ad6532f35357"; logging-data="2469"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19cSnvsqoAxyV88r57DHBTf"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HXbYJaDT4Gp+UMydMdK91ps+qc4= sha1:CwlRzEeCmhhP+IUMPYYUlcVDIHI=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:107279

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> What is the purpose of defining CLOCKS_PER_SEC (not SECOND according to 
> Keith) if it always 1000000?

You know, rather than qualifying that with "according to Keith",
you could always check the C standard, which is exactly what I did.
You have a copy of n1570.pdf and a way to view it, yes?  You have a
tendency to guess when it's completely unnecessary.  Just look it up.
(I'm not criticizing you for getting the name wrong originally;
mistakes happen, and I've made plenty of them.)

Who says it's *always* 1000000?  It's always 1000000 on systems
that conform to POSIX (and apparently on Windows systems as well),
but the C standard covers *all* conforming C implementations, not
just that subset.  And even if it were always 10000000, having a
name for it is much more legible and less error-prone than using
a magic number.

You probably didn't even notice the extra 0 I snuck into the
previous paragraph.

> Well, if you start coding in slightly more adventurous waters where you 
> don't have access to time.h (because of using a different language, or 
> one language compiles and executes another, neither of which is C, etc) 
> then these little details /can/ be obstacles if you're trying to use an 
> exported clock() function.

Yes, some of what you're trying to do is difficult.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"