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 perf_counter() or process_time(), and the options could implement
> this (-t -> perf_counter, -c -> process_time).

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 ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list