apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Stoddard" <b...@wstoddard.com>
Subject RE: [PATCH] example BUSEC patch for benchmarking only
Date Thu, 11 Jul 2002 01:33:07 GMT
> At 01:14 PM 7/9/2002, you wrote:
> >Bill Stoddard wrote:
> >>
> >>Where and when was the post that described this proposal?  I'd
> like to take
> >>a look. Is there a patch?
> >
> >There's no patch that I know of, but here's the thread with wrowe's
> >original proposal for the binary microseconds design:
> >  http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apr-dev&m=102376298728487&w=2
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apr-dev&m=102383695930036&w=2
>
> is a better link to some example macros.
>
> >With the big batch of changes that I made last week, almost all
> >of the time-related code in the httpd now uses the new macros--
> >apr_time_sec(), apr_time_usec(), etc--instead of multiplying and
> >dividing by 1,000,000 directly.  Hopefully that will make it
> >easier to try out a new time representation.
>
> Agreed.  But even discounting that USEC_PER_SEC is used for
> it's real meaning somewhere, and would introduce slight discrepancies,
> attached is simply the gross hack to force busec units.
>
> Note the 'right' change is to have a BUSEC_PER_SEC constant,
> but this is a truer test for benchmarking.
>
> Bill

Humm... looking at this macro which is used all over the place, I see a
division.

 #define apr_time_sec(time) ((apr_int64_t)((time) / APR_USEC_PER_SEC))

Since APR_USEC_PER_SEC is now a binary representation, I assume the compiler
will do the proper optimization.

Bill


Mime
View raw message