Date:	Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:18:30 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	"Sisco, Michael" <mdsisco AT qtiworld DOT com>
cc:	"Djgpp (E-mail)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Fw: uclock() within an interrupt handler
In-Reply-To:	<BDD73AE8AEE3EF438E07420C2600E9F65C9151@qtiexch0.qgraph.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1020919151814.2289J-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Sisco, Michael wrote:

> At startup, I spend one second and use uclock() together with the RDTSC
> macro (read
> time stamp counter) to quite accurately calculate the processor speed. I
> then use RDTSC any time I need a precise time within my interrupt handler.
> This seems
> to work very well (with the added benefit that RDTSC is significantly faster
> than
> uclock()).
> 
> Do you see any problems with this approach?

Sounds okay.

- Raw text -