is there better 32 clock() timing?
snail at objmedia.demon.co.uk
Wed Jan 26 12:25:10 EST 2005
In message <n92dnc29EdyvJWrcRVn-1Q at powergate.ca>, Peter Hansen
<peter at engcorp.com> writes
>(I've read the five or so following messages you and Bengt
>have posted, but not in detail so I'm not sure where you're
>going with all this, but... )
We've gone off at a tangent about Windows timing etc. Pretty much over
>According to the docs for time.clock(), "On Windows, this function returns
>wall-clock seconds elapsed since the first call to this function, as a floating
> point number, based on the Win32 function QueryPerformanceCounter(). The
>resolution is typically better than one microsecond."
>Depending on whether you really meant "accuracy" above, and
>on other things, this is either irrelevant, or contradicts
>your first statement...
No contradiction. Python (from what you write above) implements
time.clock() differently from the CRT clock() (which I had assumed
Python would call for simplicity). Hence the differing results.
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
RSI Information: http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/rsi.html
More information about the Python-list