clock_t clock() ambiguity

[Phlip]

Could it be that Solaris and Windows NT shares a flawed codebase from
some time in the distant past?

I always suspected WinNT's clock() to return wall-clock time for a simple
reason: The function has only an 18 millisecond resolution, or some high
number like that. So if it's already useless for timing and profiling, then
there's no point in making it return processor time.

 

[Matt]

Phlip wrote:




I'm not sure what faith. The documentation is either inconsistent,
confusing, or just wrong.

This whole conversation seemed somewhat familiar, a bit of Groupling
came up with this:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/browse_frm/thread/fb0f9076
19ac71fe/7a52324dcae9a6fd>

Thanks for that link. It came up mangled in my browser. Hope this works:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/browse_frm/thread/fb0f907619ac71fe/7a52324dcae9a6fd

 

[Matt]

it's implementation-specific and we don't discuss implementations.

Okay, if you insist on being impractical, I am proposing a standard
replacement for clock_t clock(). The rationale is that Microsoft and
possibly others seem to have ruined clock()'s meaning and its usefulness
for cross-platform development. I propose we call it cpu_clock() or
maybe correct_clock() or lets_hope_ms_gets_it_right_this_time_clock().

Sheesh.

 

[Victor Bazarov]

Okay, if you insist on being impractical,

No, I insist on being on topic. If you have some complaints about some
implementations, take it up with the creator of those implementations.
Bitching about it here is not going to help.

I am proposing a standard
replacement for clock_t clock(). The rationale is that Microsoft and
possibly others seem to have ruined clock()'s meaning and its
usefulness for cross-platform development. I propose we call it
cpu_clock() or maybe correct_clock() or
lets_hope_ms_gets_it_right_this_time_clock().
Sheesh.

Whatever.

V

 

[Matt]

Also, complaining about free advice is non-sensical. You asked a question,
you received _a_ response. Take it or leave it, don't bitch about it.

I would hope that anybody who posts on usenet has higher expectations
than that. I know that there are a lot who don't, but if you don't want
more than that, what are you doing here and what do you think others are
doing here?

Now don't get non-sensical about my post. Please take my post or leave
it and don't bitch about it.

 

[Default User]

Default User wrote:

Thanks for that link. It came up mangled in my browser.

Yes, my newsreader does that in standard mode. I can switch to another
mode, but it does other things I don't like.




Brian

 

[peter koch]

Default User skrev:

I'm not sure what faith. The documentation is either inconsistent,
confusing, or just wrong.

This whole conversation seemed somewhat familiar, a bit of Groupling
came up with this:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/browse_frm/thread/fb0f9076
19ac71fe/7a52324dcae9a6fd>

I just read that - interestimng. I just wonder how my investigations
on Solaris (also gcc .... 3.2 so far as i remember) made me conclude
that clock() is elapsed time there as well. I also had one large sleep
for about five seconds.

/Peter

 

[trm]

Unlike tine(), the semantics for clock() are fairly well defined.

But it doesn't matter, as fork() and its brethren are OT for clc++.

 

[Default User]

But it doesn't matter, as fork() and its brethren are OT for clc++.

Heh.



Brian

 

[Default User]

Default User skrev:

Here's the compiler/OS info for my test:

Reading specs from
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.6/3.3.1/specs
Configured with: ../configure --with-as=/usr/ccs/bin/as
--with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/l
d --disable-nls
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.3.1

 

[Default User]

peter koch wrote:

Here's the compiler/OS info for my test:

Reading specs from
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.6/3.3.1/specs
Configured with: ../configure --with-as=/usr/ccs/bin/as
--with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/l
d --disable-nls
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.3.1

Sorry about that, accidentally posted before finishing the edit. It
should look a bit cleaner now.



Brian