Message156341
STINNER Victor wrote:
>
> STINNER Victor <victor.stinner@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 ? |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-03-19 14:14:17 | lemburg | set | recipients:
+ lemburg, pitrou, vstinner, giampaolo.rodola |
2012-03-19 14:14:16 | lemburg | link | issue14309 messages |
2012-03-19 14:14:16 | lemburg | create | |
|