Time delay loop less than 1ms

[Craig Williamson]

I'm trying to write a time delay loop in Borland C 3.1 (for legacy
code) which has an accuracy of about 0.1ms. This change is due to a
hardware change and the software is now running too fast to take
proper readings. I have been using delay(1) in the past but it does
not have the accuracy that I need for this situation. Does anyone
know of a useful C function which can be used to create the time
delay? If anyone could help that would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers and good luck :-).

[Walter Roberson]

In article <20************ *************** *******@m1g2000 pre.googlegroup s.com>,
Craig Williamson <cr************ @gmail.comwrote :

>I'm trying to write a time delay loop in Borland C 3.1 (for legacy
code) which has an accuracy of about 0.1ms. This change is due to a
hardware change and the software is now running too fast to take
proper readings. I have been using delay(1) in the past but it does
not have the accuracy that I need for this situation. Does anyone
know of a useful C function which can be used to create the time
delay? If anyone could help that would be greatly appreciated.

Sorry, no portable way. See

http://c-faq.com/osdep/subsecond.html
--
"The human mind is so strangely capricious, that, when freed from
the pressure of real misery, it becomes open and sensitive to the
ideal apprehension of ideal calamities." -- Sir Walter Scott

[jacob navia]

Craig Williamson wrote:

I'm trying to write a time delay loop in Borland C 3.1 (for legacy
code) which has an accuracy of about 0.1ms. This change is due to a
hardware change and the software is now running too fast to take
proper readings. I have been using delay(1) in the past but it does
not have the accuracy that I need for this situation. Does anyone
know of a useful C function which can be used to create the time
delay? If anyone could help that would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers and good luck :-).

Use some of the timing functions in windows. I do not remember if
GetTickCount() was already there in 16 bits windows but you could
try that one.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Bartc]

"jacob navia" <ja***@nospam.c omwrote in message
news:fu******** **@aioe.org...

Craig Williamson wrote:

>I'm trying to write a time delay loop in Borland C 3.1 (for legacy
code) which has an accuracy of about 0.1ms. This change is due to a
hardware change and the software is now running too fast to take
proper readings. I have been using delay(1) in the past but it does
not have the accuracy that I need for this situation. Does anyone
know of a useful C function which can be used to create the time
delay? If anyone could help that would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers and good luck :-).

Use some of the timing functions in windows. I do not remember if
GetTickCount() was already there in 16 bits windows but you could
try that one.

Gettickcount returns milliseconds, and may have an accuracy coarser than
that.

But if the OP is trying to slow down software, there are plenty of ways!
Although getting a delay consistent across machines, and with different
machine loading, is not so easy.

--
Bart

[jacob navia]

Bartc wrote:

"jacob navia" <ja***@nospam.c omwrote in message
news:fu******** **@aioe.org...

>Craig Williamson wrote:

>>I'm trying to write a time delay loop in Borland C 3.1 (for legacy
code) which has an accuracy of about 0.1ms. This change is due to a
hardware change and the software is now running too fast to take
proper readings. I have been using delay(1) in the past but it does
not have the accuracy that I need for this situation. Does anyone
know of a useful C function which can be used to create the time
delay? If anyone could help that would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers and good luck :-).

Use some of the timing functions in windows. I do not remember if
GetTickCount () was already there in 16 bits windows but you could
try that one.

Gettickcount returns milliseconds, and may have an accuracy coarser than
that.

But if the OP is trying to slow down software, there are plenty of ways!
Although getting a delay consistent across machines, and with different
machine loading, is not so easy.

There is Sleep(int miliseconds) too.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[CBFalconer]

jacob navia wrote:

Bartc wrote:

.... snip ...

>

>But if the OP is trying to slow down software, there are plenty
of ways! Although getting a delay consistent across machines, and
with different machine loading, is not so easy.

There is Sleep(int miliseconds) too.

Where? I don't find it in the C standard. Could you be making a
mistake and recommending functions that are not available, and thus
off-topic here? Give us the appropriate section and I will
apologize.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Keith Thompson]

CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.comwrites:

jacob navia wrote:

>Bartc wrote:

... snip ...

>>

>>But if the OP is trying to slow down software, there are plenty
of ways! Although getting a delay consistent across machines, and
with different machine loading, is not so easy.

There is Sleep(int miliseconds) too.

Where? I don't find it in the C standard. Could you be making a
mistake and recommending functions that are not available, and thus
off-topic here? Give us the appropriate section and I will
apologize.

You could save yourself some typing, and the rest of us some boredom,
by just mentioning that Sleep is non-standard. The shtick about
challenging people to find things in the standard that obviously
aren't there is getting old, don't you think?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) <ks***@mib.or g>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[CBFalconer]

Keith Thompson wrote:

CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.comwrites:

>jacob navia wrote:

>>Bartc wrote:

... snip ...

>>>
But if the OP is trying to slow down software, there are plenty
of ways! Although getting a delay consistent across machines, and
with different machine loading, is not so easy.

There is Sleep(int miliseconds) too.

Where? I don't find it in the C standard. Could you be making a
mistake and recommending functions that are not available, and thus
off-topic here? Give us the appropriate section and I will
apologize.

You could save yourself some typing, and the rest of us some boredom,
by just mentioning that Sleep is non-standard. The shtick about
challenging people to find things in the standard that obviously
aren't there is getting old, don't you think?

The aim of that post (but probably hopeless) is to get Jacob to
realize what is and is not on-topic here.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Keith Thompson]

CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.comwrites:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.comwrites:

>>jacob navia wrote:
Bartc wrote:

... snip ...

But if the OP is trying to slow down software, there are plenty
of ways! Although getting a delay consistent across machines, and
with different machine loading, is not so easy.

There is Sleep(int miliseconds) too.

Where? I don't find it in the C standard. Could you be making a
mistake and recommending functions that are not available, and thus
off-topic here? Give us the appropriate section and I will
apologize.

You could save yourself some typing, and the rest of us some boredom,
by just mentioning that Sleep is non-standard. The shtick about
challenging people to find things in the standard that obviously
aren't there is getting old, don't you think?

The aim of that post (but probably hopeless) is to get Jacob to
realize what is and is not on-topic here.

Understood. My statement above stands.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) <ks***@mib.or g>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"