C Reference function clock()

Usage of clock():

clock_t clock ( void );

Parameters:

None.

Return Value:

The number of clock ticks elapsed since the program start. If the function fails then it will return a value of -1. The clock_t type is defined in ctime.h.

Explanation:

The function returns the number of clock ticks elapsed since the start of the program.

The macro constant expression CLOCKS_PER_SEC specifies the relation between a clock tick and a second (clock ticks per second).

Note:The initial moment of reference used by clock as the beginning of the program on different platforms.

Source code example of clock():


	#include <stdio.h>
	#include <time.h>

	void sec_wait ( int sec ) {
                clock_t wait_till_end;
                wait_till_end = clock () + sec * CLOCKS_PER_SEC ;
                while (clock() < wait_till_end) {}
        }

        int main () {
                int i;
                printf ("Starting countdown...\n");
                for (i=10; i>0; i--) {
                         printf ("%d\n",i);
                         sec_wait (1);
                         if ( i == 3 )
                                printf ("Engine started...\n");
                }
               printf ("and lift off....\n");
               return 0;
      }

Output example of the program above:


	Starting countdown...
	10
	9
	8
	7
	6
	5
	4
	3
	Engine started...
	2
	1
	And lift off....

This entry was posted in C Reference time.h Functions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Tweet This! Tweet This! or use to share this post with others.

There are currently 2 responses to “C Reference function clock()”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment!

  1. George H on May 16th, 2011:

    The clock() code example has stuff to the right of the ‘while’ (underlined below):

    while (clock() < wait_till_end) {} } int main
    ————————-
    {

    }

    I like your site.
    – George

  2. admin on May 17th, 2011:

    @ George H: Nice catch, yes it was a formatting error. Changed the source code example and now the website is displaying the right format. Thx!

Leave a Reply: