[Python-Dev] cpython: Issue #14428: Use the new time.perf_counter() and time.process_time() functions (original) (raw)
Georg Brandl g.brandl at gmx.net
Mon Apr 30 12:52:57 CEST 2012
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] The step command of pdb is broken
- Next message: [Python-Dev] suggestion regarding the contributor agreement form
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 29.04.2012 03:04, victor.stinner wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/bd195749c0a2 changeset: 76599:bd195749c0a2 user: Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at gmail.com> date: Sun Apr 29 03:01:20 2012 +0200 summary: Issue #14428: Use the new time.perfcounter() and time.processtime() functions
[...]
diff --git a/Lib/timeit.py b/Lib/timeit.py --- a/Lib/timeit.py +++ b/Lib/timeit.py @@ -15,8 +15,8 @@ -n/--number N: how many times to execute 'statement' (default: see below) -r/--repeat N: how many times to repeat the timer (default 3) -s/--setup S: statement to be executed once initially (default 'pass') - -t/--time: use time.time() (default on Unix) - -c/--clock: use time.clock() (default on Windows) + -t/--time: use time.time() + -c/--clock: use time.clock()
Does it make sense to keep the options this way? IMO the distinction should be to use either perf_counter() or process_time(), and the options could implement this (-t -> perf_counter, -c -> process_time).
Georg
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] The step command of pdb is broken
- Next message: [Python-Dev] suggestion regarding the contributor agreement form
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]