[Python-Dev] cpython: Issue #14428: Use the new time.perf_counter() and time.process_time() functions (original) (raw)
Victor Stinner victor.stinner at gmail.com
Tue May 1 10:35:56 CEST 2012
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython: Handle a possible race condition
- Next message: [Python-Dev] cpython: Issue #14428: Use the new time.perf_counter() and time.process_time() functions
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
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 perfcounter() or processtime(), and the options could implement this (-t -> perfcounter, -c -> processtime).
You might need to use exactly the same clock to compare performance of Python 3.2 and 3.3.
Adding an option to use time.process_time() is a good idea. Is anyone interested to implement it?
Victor
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython: Handle a possible race condition
- Next message: [Python-Dev] cpython: Issue #14428: Use the new time.perf_counter() and time.process_time() functions
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]