Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:04:29 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "Monotonic" counter/register call - commit candidate. Message-ID: <200011182104.eAIL4YJ13194@gratis.grondar.za> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0011190721390.604-100000@besplex.bde.org> ; from Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> "Sun, 19 Nov 2000 07:32:04 %2B1100." References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0011190721390.604-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > "get_counter" is hopelessly vague. get_cyclecount would be OK too. I > > don't care. Pick a name and stop bloody arguing about it. > > How about rdcdtsc() (read cpu-dependent timestamp counter)? :-). Whatever. I've chosen a name now. Names have bloated this discussion way into the bikeshed arena. > I hesitate to mention that we already have an imperfectly good function > for access to certain machine-dependent counters: cputime(). It is > only implemented on i386's and only used for profiling. It is almost > as slow as a timecounter (not all that slow). That function is kinda bloated; all I need is rdtsc() and its equivalents. I think that John Baldwin and I have converged on something practical. M -- Mark Murray Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200011182104.eAIL4YJ13194>