From:	Endlisnis <s257m AT unb DOT ca>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: uclock trouble
Date:	Sat, 15 May 1999 22:10:27 -0400
Organization:	BrunNet
Lines:	24
Message-ID:	<373E2913.3F26428C@unb.ca>
References:	<373DCBAB DOT DB9BC535 AT enter DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	ftnts1c20.brunnet.net
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Sean wrote:

> I've been using uclock() from libc, since clock() from there is horribly
> imprecise.  But uclock() is very inaccurate.  Maybe it's just my
> computer, but when I run it it seems like it counts up to like 0x1200 or
> so, then goes down to -0xFFFF or so.  I'm just guessing because I can't
> really tell when, I'm just printing stuff to the screen.  It counts back
> up after it reaches its low point, which has been making all my timing
> terribly off.  If anyone knows why, I'd appreciate it.  (preferably mail
> me too, just in case I forget to check the response)  Thanks.

    What OS are you running?  Win3.1 breaks uclock().  Win95 will sometimes
screw around with uclock on slower machines.


--
     (\/) Endlisnis (\/)
          s257m AT unb DOT ca
          Endlisnis AT HotMail DOT com
          ICQ: 32959047

- Raw text -