Hello Ruben, Ruben Van Boxem <[email protected]> writes:
> This is comparable to the output I get from VS2013. So I would say this is > a quality of implementation issue (wrt the resolution of the clock used). > I doubt though that this is nonconformant. I didn't look up the exact > chrono requirements in the standard though. > > What exactly do you think is "broken" here beyond a bad resolution? I don't think that the jump it makes from 0 to 15e6 for a 10-fold increase on iterations is about resolution. The output sometimes is 0 for the last line too. But you are right about VS2013, although that doesn't mean much given the quality of that release (I'm considering switching to MinGW-W64 from VS2010 after finding blocking bugs on VS2013.) It can be a QoI issue indeed, but the fact that boost gives reasonable values tells us that MinGW-W64 and VS2013 could do much better. I'll investigate further. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shape the Mobile Experience: Free Subscription Software experts and developers: Be at the forefront of tech innovation. Intel(R) Software Adrenaline delivers strategic insight and game-changing conversations that shape the rapidly evolving mobile landscape. Sign up now. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63431311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
