From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-16 07:27:58
Johan Nilsson wrote:
>> I'm not sure which clock do you mean when you say that a thread can't
>> sleep for less than a clock tick. If you mean the CPU clock, then
>> yes, a no-op Sleep function that returns immediately would probably
>> consume more than one clock tick, so it is impossible to make a
>> thread sleep for less.
>
> I referred to the timer tick period (~10-15 ms for the NT family).
It used to be the case that you can't get better than 10ms precision on NT
without calling timeBeginPeriod, but that was years ago, I think (NT 3.5,
not sure about 4). I'm getting ms-precise timing (not hard realtime,
obviously, but correct most of the time) on Windows XP.