On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 6:10:23 PM UTC+2, Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote: > > Le mardi 30 septembre 2014 17:26:10 UTC+2, Bert Belder a écrit : >> >> >> But I can't really think of any valid use case for this, which makes it >> hard to tell whether any api is actually useful. >> I am not so much in favor of adding features that nobody really needs >> (yet), which is why I'm asking for the use case the TS needs it for or has >> in mind. >> > > Sorry, I have a radical different view. I build Linux embedded system > since more than 15 years and I can't remember a single one that don't use > periodic timer. >
Note that I was speaking of a high-precision periodic timer. I'm saying that a sloppy one (as sloppy as we have today or slighly better) can easily be built on top of a one-shot timer. I am curious for one these embedded systems used high-precision (periodic or not) timers. > Most of the times this is related to the hardware > Maybe on embedded systems, I don't know. Can you give me examples of hardware other than the display (see below for that)? Are you trying to do something very realtime like controlling a robot? or user interface where it is expected to not have delay that depend of a > callback execution time to get a smooth operation. > I think for user interfaces 60fps is generally considered good enough. This requires a timer with at most a (1000 / 60) ≈ 16ms interval, which is well within the range of what the current timer implementation can do. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "libuv" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libuv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to libuv@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libuv. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
