Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BGB <cr88192@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 19:54:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <vtmv93$ro5p$1@dont-email.me>
References: <87y0wjaysg.fsf@gmail.com> <vsjlcp$230a5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsni1v$291i3$5@dont-email.me>
 <slrnvv82gk.2aciv.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
 <vt1a7f$i5jd$1@dont-email.me> <vti36r$g4nu$2@dont-email.me>
 <slrnvvqhmc.2eh69.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
 <vtjknt$1sp26$1@dont-email.me> <vtk2f9$295ku$2@dont-email.me>
 <vtka7u$2ddeu$1@dont-email.me> <vtkmhm$2u0tr$3@dont-email.me>
 <vtkrm6$30c7e$2@dont-email.me> <vtm4l7$54nr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtm6lv$78l6$2@dont-email.me> <dayLP.2057058$OrR5.374502@fx18.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 02:57:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6b99f3ad9b95b9482b88e76dc54fe68";
	logging-data="909497"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18OIKUwvkd21UMyKVRQUbxE9Xr92ZdTLqM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WNSwqcSepFgB/0dxDlDGzYb7Ktg=
In-Reply-To: <dayLP.2057058$OrR5.374502@fx18.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2406

On 4/15/2025 2:10 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 4/15/2025 12:22 PM, David Brown wrote:
> 
>> I am not saying that the smaller times don't exist, but that there is no
>> point in wasting bits encoding times more accurate than can be used by a
>> computer running at a few GHz, with clock speeds that will likely never
>> exceed a few GHz.
>>
>> This sets the practical limit mostly in nanosecond territory.
> 
> If you try to close timing on any reasonably speed processor design
> you're talking 10s of picoseconds for a 3Ghz design target.
> 

3GHz means a cycle time of around 333ps, or around 3 clock cycles per 
nanosecond.

A cycle time of 10 picoseconds would require 100 GHz, not gonna happen.

This is not to say that picoseconds don't matter for electronics design.

But, just, they don't really matter for typical software use cases.