Marc-Andre Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> added the comment: STINNER Victor wrote: > > STINNER Victor <victor.stin...@gmail.com> added the comment: > >> There's no other single function providing the same functionality > > time.clock() is not portable: it is a different clock depending on the OS. To > write portable code, you have to use the right function: > > - time.time() > - time.steady() > - os.times(), resource.getrusage()
time.clock() does exactly what the docs say: you get access to a CPU timer. It's normal that CPU timers work differently on different OSes. > On Windows, time.clock() should be replaced by time.steady(). What for ? time.clock() uses the same timer as time.steady() on Windows, AFAICT, so all you change is the name of the function. > On UNIX, time.clock() can be replaced with "usage=os.times(); > usage[0]+usage[1]" for example. And what's the advantage of that over using time.clock() directly ? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue14309> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
