"Russell Hind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Alisdair Meredith wrote: > > Russell Hind wrote: > > > > > >>I agree with that. Would it be better to make it a millisec_clock, or > >>just use the microsec_clock but the resolution is only milliseconds? > > > > > > WinAPI Note: we can get a higher resolution using the > > QueryPerformanceCounter API (and QueryPerformanceFrequency if resolution > > info is required) > > > > Can these be used to get an actual date/time though? Or just for high > resolution timing? I've only had a brief look at them, so will read a > bit more. >
Yes and yes. But the former (using them to get an actual date/time with a _low_ overhead) is ... well ... interesting ;-) // Johan _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
