Re: [hatari-devel] Bogus profiler CPU cycles values

To: hatari-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [hatari-devel] Bogus profiler CPU cycles values
From: Douglas Little <doug694@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:37:36 +0000
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=89v7fLQmF9BpKv+qD2EZ2Vn3+R7zJSp2TKy1KaWr1VE=; b=zqiPgR4Dw4sHgRaoeCmDxvf8faJrqawK0euvHyfX7rl89Mol0EnBNIgDV+PTl9LEuh q9j3Q58q+jA/pNCTxP3zd/kz960oUKx535z0W3XdwKr2OsSR55RMgoMbhuo297rInFPf hJukZSfe9+ZlR0UttpRH2OQuRfpsqeMSA2zL53Libzy5nO1b8fvmdtXwGzrLrESPbmri jYf9vdVS8pgqUd+4qMEkD52sV6VsElxKrO8sgZ3J+dypHbt6ukCpaAyKnI3xzqULU7EL 5E9BffxaGQ2D2TW/MAy/PY+z6Iwd6BLf10Mr8NUuTzFbqvZ0xGYl+fpslNQr5PvHQ8Ar hHrg==

Currently I'm showing time in seconds, with 3 decimals, is
that enough? (It's assumed to be used with longer operations)

If it is accumulated time over the duration of the profiling, then yes I think that's fine.

(For instantaneous / 'per visit' timings, that would need to be represented as cycles only).

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [hatari-devel] Bogus profiler CPU cycles values
  - From: Eero Tamminen

References:
- [hatari-devel] Bugs profiler CPU cycles values
  - From: Eero Tamminen
- Re: [hatari-devel] Bogus profiler CPU cycles values
  - From: Eero Tamminen

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+