|
From: <bmorris@ca.ibm.com> > That site provides a way to get a timestamp that's unique, but it > doesn't promise that the microseconds will be valid, just that > they'll be different from the previous value obtained. > > As far as I know, there's no way to get an accurate microseconds > measurement. The 8-microsecond resolution actually gives you a fairly accurate number. I tested it against what the MFTB instruction gives and on my 150 there was a very nice linear relationship between the value returned at the MI and the timebase count (which is accurate), with 49.53 ticks to each microsecond. (probably meaning that the 150 is a 49.53 MHz machine). Just too bad that the resolution has been downgraded by a factor or 200. Why not simply return the full resolution the machine is capable of? If the result is not unique (as tested against the previous value) just do it again. +--- | This is the Midrange System Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com. | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com. | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.