Re: clock(3) non-functional?
Svante Signell, le Sun 29 Jun 2014 23:11:14 +0200, a écrit :
> On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 22:56 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Hello,
> > > The following simple program gives unreliable results both on Linux and
> > > especially Hurd:
> > Again, what do you mean by "unreliable"? What did you expect?
> I'd expected an elapsed time of 3 seconds with a sleep(3) in between
> start and stop. That's the usage in the libsamplerate code. If it is
> computer CPU time to execute the command sleep(3) the result seems
sleep(3) does not consume CPU, so the value returned by clock() is not
supposed to increase much. You have to use a busy loop in order to