[PATCH 1/2] benchtests: Memory walking benchmark for memcpy
Siddhesh Poyarekar
siddhesh@sourceware.org
Thu Oct 5 04:55:00 GMT 2017
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
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list