[Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?
Paul Moore
p.f.moore at gmail.com
Thu Mar 15 09:23:35 CET 2012
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Thu Mar 15 09:23:35 CET 2012
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 15 March 2012 01:58, Matt Joiner <anacrolix at gmail.com> wrote: > Victor, I think that steady can always be monotonic, there are time sources > enough to ensure this on the platforms I am aware of. Strict in this sense > refers to not being adjusted forward, i.e. CLOCK_MONOTONIC vs > CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW. I agree - Kristján pointed out that you can ensure that backward jumps never occur by implementing a cache of the last value. > Non monotonicity of this call should be considered a bug. +1 > Strict would be used for profiling where forward leaps would disqualify the timing. I'm baffled as to how you even identify "forward leaps". In relation to what? A more accurate time source? I thought that by definition this was the most accurate time source we have! +1 on a simple time.steady() with guaranteed monotonicity and no flags to alter behaviour. Paul.
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list