On 10/16/2013 09:55 AM, Jordan Justen wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Ian Romanick <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 10/14/2013 04:37 PM, Jordan Justen wrote: >>> Chad, >>> >>> I wanted a similar feature, but I was also thinking of adding a >>> piglit-util function (piglit_get_microseconds). I think it should be >>> easy to port this function to windows. >>> >>> I also had the cmake parts a little different, but I don't really have >>> a preference on that. >>> >>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~jljusten/piglit/commit/?id=d1a9c3fb >> >> I'd rather use a POSIX function and provide an implementation of that >> function on platforms that don't already support it. We already do that >> for a number of C99 functions. > > Would you consider clock_gettime a POSIX function? > > My proposed piglit_get_microseconds function uses that. (I posted this > patch yesterday as > 03/10 piglit-util: add piglit_get_microseconds.) > > Although, according to: > http://www.tin.org/bin/man.cgi?section=3&topic=clock_gettime > perhaps I should be making sure _POSIX_TIMERS and > _POSIX_MONOTONIC_CLOCK are defined. > > Or, is your feedback that we should use the clock_gettime function as > the interface rather than adding piglit_get_microseconds? In that > case, my thought is that the simple wrapper function would make it > somewhat less cumbersome than dealing with the struct. (simple > uint64_t vs. 2 fields in a struct)
Riiiight. I always forget how annoying the interfaces are in the POSIX time functions. piglit_get_microseconds isn't just a portability wrapper around clock_gettime, it provides a different interface. Correct? I'm fine with that. I do agree with Chad's comment about the implementation of piglit_get_microseconds. I'll reply there too. > -Jordan _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
