formatting time as milliseconds in logging module
Josiah Carlson
jcarlson at uci.edu
Tue Oct 19 16:16:48 EDT 2004
bokr at oz.net (Bengt Richter) wrote:
> Yes I suspected as much. You are presumably referring to
[snip original C source]
Yes.
> which IMO really should be (untested):
> -----------------
[snip unchanged code]
> divisor = (double)freq.QuadPart;
> now = ctrStart;
> } else {
> QueryPerformanceCounter(&now);
> }
> diff = (double)(now.QuadPart - ctrStart.QuadPart);
> return PyFloat_FromDouble(diff / divisor);
> -----------------
That would be arbitrarily more accurate, but on my machine it is a
difference of around 10^-5 seconds. I don't think it really makes a
difference.
Feel free to submit a patch.
In the context of the original question, the poster would likely be
rounding to the nearest 1/1000 second, so the tens of microseconds
doesn't seem to be a concern.
> >> Maybe not even all windows. E.g., for NT that is one scheuling time slice,
> >> but oher variants might have other granularity, IWT.
> >
> >Good point, though I think that 9x variants also had .01 second
> >resolution.
> I don't recall, but the old ~55ms tick was used a lot in the old days.
According to a few sources, windows 98 time slices were around 20ms.
Whether or not you could get time resolution beyond the time slice with
time.time(), let us find out. I just happen to have a P166 running
windows 98...
Hrm, looks like 18 or 19 unique times each second, which is around the
55ms tick time you offer. Ick.
- Josiah
More information about the Python-list
mailing list