Can't you take care of this in the build system? I never go near Windows, the last version I used was Win 95. But on other systems I always use something like the GNU Auto tools cmake or whatever and part of the process is to check for the availability of each system call and library and then the source is built using what's on that specific machine. I'd guess that there is something like this in Windows. Is GNU Autoconf ported to Windows? If so then use QueryPerformanceCounter() if it is available. It seems much cleaner to that care of this kind off thing in the build process
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Mark Sims <hol...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Heather's gotta work with XP (and maybe Win98)... too many people (including > me) run it on old trashy laptops, so no fancy pants new fangled Windoze calls > allowed... > > In the past I've avoided the use of QueryPerformanceCounter due to potential > issues with AMD processors, multi-core processors and multi-processor > systems, inaccurate/invalid reported CPU clock frequency (TSC tick count > divisor) values, variable clock rate systems, etc. I'm now back to using > it, but have added an option for switching back to GetTickCount() and it's 16 > msec granularity. I'm getting very good results so far. > --------------------------- >> You can also use the QueryPeformanceCounter and related functions for better >> precision. > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. -- Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
