This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] benchtests: Memory walking benchmark for memcpy


On Thursday 05 October 2017 03:49 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> As the subsystem maintainer I defer to your choice here. I don't have a
> strong opinion, other than a desire for conformity of measurements to
> avoid confusion. If I could say anything, consider the consumer and make
> sure the data is tagged such that a consumer can determine if it is time
> or throughput.

OK, I'll take the conservative route and stick to measuring time here
instead of rate.  If I feel strongly enough about it I'll start a
separate discussion on making all data routines (i.e. string/memory
routines) rate based so that there's no confusion.

Siddhesh


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]