En Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:51:28 -0300, hiral
escribió:
On Mar 15, 7:14 am, Tim Roberts wrote:
hiral wrote:
>Output:
>real0.0m0.010002421s
>user0.0m0.0s
>sys 0.0m0.0s
>Command:
>$ time ls
>Output:
>real0m0.007s
>user0m0.000s
>sys 0m0.000s
You can't really do an a
On Mar 15, 7:14 am, Tim Roberts wrote:
> hiral wrote:
> >...
> >Output:
> >real 0.0m0.010002421s
> >user 0.0m0.0s
> >sys 0.0m0.0s
>
> >Command:
> >$ time ls
>
> >Output:
> >real 0m0.007s
> >user 0m0.000s
> >sys 0m0.000s
>
> >Is this the intended behaviour?
>
> What is it th
hiral wrote:
>...
>Output:
>real0.0m0.010002421s
>user0.0m0.0s
>sys 0.0m0.0s
>
>
>Command:
>$ time ls
>
>Output:
>real0m0.007s
>user0m0.000s
>sys 0m0.000s
>
>
>Is this the intended behaviour?
What is it that you are wondering about? The formatting difference is due
to
Thank you, aspineux and Douglas.
Douglas's analysis is especially great.
I changed HZ to CLK_TCK in Python-2.5/Modules/posixmodule.c and
got the proper result!
$ time /usr/local/python2.5/bin/python ostimetest.rb
n=35, v=14930352
utime=12.42, stime=0.04
real0m1
Your analysis looks great, maybe the good arguments to report a bug ?
On 3 fév, 04:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Douglas Wells) wrote:
> [various posting problems corrected and response interspersed in
> previous post for purposes of coherent response]
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
>
>
> "aspin
[various posting problems corrected and response interspersed in
previous post for purposes of coherent response]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"aspineux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2 Feb, 19:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a question about os.times().
> > os.times() re
I dont see anything wrong !
Did you try to measure time with your watch ?
Did you try a simple python test.py without the time command ?
Maybe python is 'disturbed' by the intel core
Here my result on a linux dual AMD, python 2.4.3
# time python test.py
n=35, v=14930352
utime=22.54, stime=0.02
