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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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