----- Original Message ----- From: "Tan, Tom (Shanghai)" <TTan@husky.ca> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [boost] : [chrono] v0.4.5 Documentation update + warnings +removal + bug fixes
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:00:15 +0200 From: "vicente.botet" <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> Subject: [boost] [chrono] v0.4.5 Documentation update + warnings removal + bug fixes
Waiting for the review I plan to add yet a lightweight stopwatch, as suggested by Tom Tan on a personal mail, which stores a reference to a generalization of the Clock duration or an accumulator of the Clock duration. I'll concentrate also in improving the documentation and the tests. Hi Vincente, Thanks for the feature. One more request, can you make this following specialization work?
Could you elaborate a little bit?
//typedef stopclock_accumulator< boost::chrono::process_cpu_clock > process_cpu_stopclock_accumulator; It's commented out in your source code, I assume it does not compile yet.
Yes. It doesn't compile because boost::chrono::process_cpu_clock is not really a Clock. This line is also commented: //typedef stopclock< boost::chrono::process_cpu_clock > process_cpu_stopclock;
In general, I'd like to see process_cpu_clock to be supported as the first-class citizen like process_real_cpu_clock, process_user_cpu_clock and so on.
Me too. Long time ago a tryed it, but I didn't reach to model it completly in terms of the Clock requirements. I will try again if find an idea on how to do it. Best, Vicente