> Le 10 oct. 2018 à 23:50, Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> a écrit : > > Just make sure that the user understands that the wall clock timings > have microsecond resolution wheras the user+system time values have > a lower resolutions. Since they are in the same line of output, it's > not obvious to understand.
Ok. But since really, this tool is not for high quality profile, but just to get cost estimates, I did not aim at that level of precision. > What would be the best way to clarify this? By using an appropriate > number of decimal digits? > > Execution times (seconds) > read : 0.091 (19%) usr 0.080 (80%) sys 0.090242 (18%) > wall > read: scan : 0.043 ( 9%) usr 0.080 (80%) sys 0.123492 (26%) > wall > read: parse : 0.056 (10%) usr 0.000 ( 0%) sys 0.052384 (10%) > wall > work : 0.333 (70%) usr 0.000 ( 0%) sys 0.353432 (71%) > wall > work: phase 1 : 0.301 (64%) usr 0.000 ( 0%) sys 0.307234 (64%) > wall > work: phase 2 : 0.139 (28%) usr 0.000 ( 0%) sys 0.144232 (29%) > wall > output : 0.043 ( 9%) usr 0.020 (20%) sys 0.040233 ( 8%) > wall > total time : 0.474 0.100 0.492343 > > Or by using column headers? > > Execution times (seconds) > CPU user CPU system wall clock > (4 ms res.) (4 ms res.) (1 µs res.) > read : 0.091 (19%) 0.080 (80%) 0.090242 (18%) > read: scan : 0.043 ( 9%) 0.080 (80%) 0.123492 (26%) > read: parse : 0.056 (10%) 0.000 ( 0%) 0.052384 (10%) > work : 0.333 (70%) 0.000 ( 0%) 0.353432 (71%) > work: phase 1 : 0.301 (64%) 0.000 ( 0%) 0.307234 (64%) > work: phase 2 : 0.139 (28%) 0.000 ( 0%) 0.144232 (29%) > output : 0.043 ( 9%) 0.020 (20%) 0.040233 ( 8%) > total time : 0.474 0.100 0.492343 I clearly prefer the second one, not because it specifies the precision, but because it factors details. Also, I don’t think it makes sense to have more than 2 digits of precision: we are very likely to be within noise already with 2.
