Re: [PATCH] MI: new timing command

[Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>]

Mark Kettenis wrote:

>> Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:15:27 -0500
>> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
>> 
>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 08:42:12PM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:
>> > Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
>> >  > In that case you can copy the necessary guards from that file.
>> >  > However, it does more than just getrusage - it also supports
>> >  > platforms with times() but without getrusage, which IIRC includes
>> >  > Windows, so it might be better to use it.
>> > 
>> > But as a last resort it returns elapsed time which would be wrong.
>> 
>> You keep saying this but I don't see why.  Why is it wrong?  On every
>> platform where we can do it, we'll print usage; on platforms where we
>> can't do it, the odds are pretty good that the OS isn't aggressively
>> scheduling other tasks in while we're running, so wall time is pretty
>> close to right.
> 
> I agree completely.

Is this important? This timing is entirely for diagnostic purposes, 
so why try to make it work on every possible platform. We need to document
that -enable-timing may fail, and that's it.

- Volodya