On 2013-01-07, at 2:39 AM, Josh Aas wrote: > I was working on something for which TimeStamp and TimeDuration classes would > be helpful in simplifying code that deals with a cache expiration date. This > code does not require high-precision timing. In review I was told that > "TimeStamp shouldn't be used unless a hi-precision ms resolution is needed", > and that TimeStamp was particularly expensive on Windows due to the use of > QueryPerfomanceCounter. > > TimeStamp doesn't seem to have been created with a heavy speed for accuracy > tradeoff in mind. Is this true?
TimeStamp is designed to be both very fast and very accurate. Unfortunately, the the Windows timing APIs are somewhat of a disaster which makes it very difficult to achieve this (Bug 676349) > If so, should there be a less expensive way to use it, such as an option or > default for lower accuracy? Probably. I'd suggest adding a TimeStamp::LowResNow() as an alias for Now() and filing a bug about getting a cheaper implementation of that function on Windows. FWIW, Chrome has something similar to this as well. -Jeff _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
