Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: CLOCKS_PER_SEC Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:14:01 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <20161014162129.223274fe7ba3d5b06850f0e1@g{oogle}mail.com> <20161014185607.e6907b112e1a0dee37bb46a7@g{oogle}mail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1122fc78d0e2af7d3ccaced5a99dbd59"; logging-data="32660"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/sZdQ/Rr+tEUNF4XBce1Eu" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:G5YOuQucvcghtT/KsQYBf4T2/As= sha1:DLpB8z5mzgyy+ElE8FBOtF4ZaQo= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:94859 Anton Shepelev writes: > Keith Thompson: [...] >>That would be difficult to do accurately. The >>clock() function measures CPU time, not real time. > > Is it not proportional to real time? No. For example, a process waiting on I/O, or swapped out, consumes little or no CPU time, and on a multicore system a process can consume more than one CPU second per real-time second. (Obviously this can be system-specific.) >>You'd have to execute a loop that consumes a known >>amount of CPU time and compare that to the values >>returned by clock() before and after the loop. > > Well, I should go the other way round, i.e. wait a > known length of time and compare it with what > clock() has counted: > > const Seconds = 10; > t1 := clock(); > native_delay( Seconds ); > t2 := clock(); > CLOCKS_PER_SECOND := (t2 - t1) / Seconds; > > where native_delay() is whatsoever delay routine the > host language or OS provides. The value returned by clock() will probably not advance while native_delay() is running. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org 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"