>>>>Still, if coverage logging can have microseconds, this was surely feasible, probably by use of different API functions.
>>>
>>>That's a Performance Counter object. You can use the QueryPerformanceCounter API functions. One problem with that is its performance, though. Although it returns timing values with the highest possible precision, the API call takes longer than other call for querying elapsed time.
>>
>>Sounds like quantum theory - we're getting close down to processor instruction level to observe our code, and that's where the observer begins to influence the phenomenon he wants to observe.
>>
>>Still, knowing its limitations, I do love coverage profiler :).
>
>Just be careful on double core cpu's: the queryperf counters can get out of synch there, logging miminmal time machine behaviour from your program if you don't apply necessary pathces...

Great... luckily, I always try to keep my machine somewhat suboptimal (that's how "slow" is said in Microsoft newspeak), so my laptop is dual core, but the development box is not. And I'll probably keep it that way.

And what do the patches do, force the counters to execute in the same neck of the processing woods as the caller?