Re: [Pharo-dev] Comparison of actual and expected Delay length on small durations

2016-03-12 Thread Ben Coman
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Ben Coman wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Aliaksei Syrel > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> At some point I got a feeling that actual Delay time is longer than >> expected. It is especially visible on small delays

Re: [Pharo-dev] Comparison of actual and expected Delay length on small durations

2016-03-12 Thread Ben Coman
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Aliaksei Syrel wrote: > Hi > > At some point I got a feeling that actual Delay time is longer than > expected. It is especially visible on small delays less than 100ms > (otherwise difference is < 1%). > > [image: Inline image 1] >

Re: [Pharo-dev] Comparison of actual and expected Delay length on small durations

2016-03-12 Thread serge . stinckwich
Sent from my iPhone On 12 mars 2016, at 21:01, Aliaksei Syrel wrote: >> I get a BoxedFloat64(61.5) > > Very strange... > > For some unexpected reason you get integers in delay test. But all values > should be floats. I double checked the script.. > > There is a

Re: [Pharo-dev] Comparison of actual and expected Delay length on small durations

2016-03-12 Thread Henrik Nergaard
The numbers in that csv from is in float, but with the fraction part is 0. This is most likely caused by the fact that the precision for timing is in milliseconds, not microseconds. Even the #primUTCMicrosecondsClock only updates per millisecond for me. (Windows). ((1 to: 10) collect: [:n

Re: [Pharo-dev] Comparison of actual and expected Delay length on small durations

2016-03-12 Thread Aliaksei Syrel
> > I get a BoxedFloat64(61.5) Very strange... For some unexpected reason you get integers in delay test. But all values should be floats. I double checked the script.. There is a difference in arithmetic behaviour between mac and windows! Cheers, Alex On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Cyril

Re: [Pharo-dev] Comparison of actual and expected Delay length on small durations

2016-03-12 Thread Cyril Ferlicot D.
Le 12/03/2016 20:44, Aliaksei Syrel a écrit : > I think we just found a serious bug! > > Cyrill, could you perform a division in the same image you used for > delay test and post result here? > > 123 / 2.0 > I get a BoxedFloat64(61.5) -- Cyril Ferlicot http://www.synectique.eu 165

Re: [Pharo-dev] Comparison of actual and expected Delay length on small durations

2016-03-12 Thread Aliaksei Syrel
I think we just found a serious bug! Cyrill, could you perform a division in the same image you used for delay test and post result here? > 123 / 2.0 On mac I get a float 61.5 Cheers, Alex On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Cyril Ferlicot D. wrote: > Le 12/03/2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Comparison of actual and expected Delay length on small durations

2016-03-12 Thread Cyril Ferlicot D.
Le 12/03/2016 18:47, Aliaksei Syrel a écrit : > Hi > > At some point I got a feeling that actual Delay time is longer than > expected. It is especially visible on small delays less than 100ms > (otherwise difference is < 1%). > > Inline image 1 > Documentation says that _Delay waits

Re: [Pharo-dev] Comparison of actual and expected Delay length on small durations

2016-03-12 Thread Aliaksei Syrel
*Difference is in milliseconds*, sorry :) On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Aliaksei Syrel wrote: > Hi > > At some point I got a feeling that actual Delay time is longer than > expected. It is especially visible on small delays less than 100ms > (otherwise difference is <

[Pharo-dev] Comparison of actual and expected Delay length on small durations

2016-03-12 Thread Aliaksei Syrel
Hi At some point I got a feeling that actual Delay time is longer than expected. It is especially visible on small delays less than 100ms (otherwise difference is < 1%). [image: Inline image 1] Documentation says that *Delay waits approximately* for specified amount of time. However, according