449,144 Members | 1,250 Online
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 449,144 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

# what do the values of "clocks ticks" and "CLOCK_PER_SEC" represent?

 P: n/a what do the values of "clocks_ticks = sysconf(_SC_CLK_TCK);" and "CLOCK_PER_SEC" represent? Jan 30 '07 #1
6 Replies

 P: n/a chandanlinster

 P: n/a Jens Thoms Toerring wrote: chandanlinster what do the values of "clocks_ticks = sysconf(_SC_CLK_TCK);" and"CLOCK_PER_SEC" represent? "CLOCKS_PER_SEC" (I guess you meant that) is the time the value returned by the function clock() must be divided by to give a time in seconds. What the non-standard-C (but POSIX) function sysconf() returns for "_SC_CLK_TCK" (also not a standard-C but POSIX defined value) is the time resolution the values returned by the times() function are in (you may already have guessed that this is also not a standard-C but POSIX function;-).They typicaly are the not the same. And neither of them is meant to be confused with the clock rate of the processor(s). I'm grateful for this explanation. In addition, it's often said that POSIX dictates a fixed value of 1000000 for CLOCKS_PER_SEC, which seems to me to be at odds with satisfactory C usage. This leads to what I would call wasting 10000 increments in the typical case where clock() has a physical resolution of 0.010 second. You find this out, for example, by evaluating clock() in a loop and finding that it increments by 10000 whenever it changes. This unfortunate situation increases the incentive to use alternatives to standard C clock(). Jan 30 '07 #3

 P: n/a Thanks a lot for the explaination!!! Feb 1 '07 #4

 P: n/a chandanlinster wrote: Thanks a lot for the explaination!!! What explanation? You really need to include context when you post. My news server has expired the original article to which you are replying. Does anyone still have the original article along with the reply and if so could you post it please? Feb 13 '07 #5

 P: n/a Op Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:29:18 -0600 schreef Joe Estock: chandanlinster wrote: >Thanks a lot for the explaination!!! What explanation? You really need to include context when you post. My news server has expired the original article to which you are replying. Does anyone still have the original article along with the reply and if so could you post it please? I agree fully, but why wait more than twelve days to reach to this conclusion ? ;-) -- Coos Feb 13 '07 #6

 P: n/a Coos Haak wrote: Op Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:29:18 -0600 schreef Joe Estock: >chandanlinster wrote: >>Thanks a lot for the explaination!!! What explanation? You really need to include context when you post. Mynews server has expired the original article to which you are replying.Does anyone still have the original article along with the reply and ifso could you post it please? I agree fully, but why wait more than twelve days to reach to this conclusion ? ;-) It's not intentional; I seem to have less and less of this "free time" I hear so many people talking about these days and it takes me a while to catch up. It was by chance I even saw this article in the first place. Apr 25 '07 #7

### This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.