On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:32:35 +0300
Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> most pixman performance benchmarks currently rely on gettime() from
> test/util.[ch]:
> - lowlevel-blt-bench
> - prng-test
> - radial-perf-test
> - scaling-bench
>
> Furthermore, affine-bench has its own gettimei() which is essen
On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:46:00 -0400
Fernando Seiti Furusato wrote:
> I have made some changes to the file pixman-vmx.c, which uses vmx (aka
> altivec)
> to optimize pixman. Basically, what I did:
> Changed vec_perm to now perform xor operation over the positions so it will
> work regardless of e
I would have the first call return 0.0 and all the others return the
difference between current time and when that first call was done. Then
there is no worry about accuracy of floating point. I do not think any
callers are interested in the absolute time, only in subtracting two
results to get an
On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 08:32:35 +0100, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
most pixman performance benchmarks currently rely on gettime() from
test/util.[ch]:
- lowlevel-blt-bench
- prng-test
- radial-perf-test
- scaling-bench
Furthermore, affine-bench has its own gettimei() which is essentially
gettime() but
Hi,
most pixman performance benchmarks currently rely on gettime() from
test/util.[ch]:
- lowlevel-blt-bench
- prng-test
- radial-perf-test
- scaling-bench
Furthermore, affine-bench has its own gettimei() which is essentially
gettime() but with uin32_t instead of double.
double
gettime (void)
{
