Re: [Valgrind-developers] Any objection if I add VG_(read_nanosecond_timer) as well as VG_(read_millisecond_timer)?

[Niall D. <ndo...@bl...>]

I've just finished the port of my overall patch to Linux valgrind, so please
find attached a patch implementing VG_(read_nanosecond_timer). It looks like
your bug tracker is for bugs and not feature patches, so please do mention
if you want this patch to go elsewhere.

I'll detail the overall patch to cachegrind in a separate post.

Niall

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Seward [mailto:js...@ac...]
> Sent: 05 April 2013 11:45
> To: Niall Douglas
> Cc: val...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Valgrind-developers] Any objection if I add
> VG_(read_nanosecond_timer) as well as VG_(read_millisecond_timer)?
> 
> 
> > The problem, at present, is that VG_(read_millisecond_timer) is the
> > only timing routine I can see. The generic cache configuration
> > detection routine is far more accurate if it is given microsecond or
better
> accurate timing.
> > So would it be okay if I add VG_(read_nanosecond_timer) returning a
ULong?
> 
> How do you plan to implement VG_(read_nanosecond_timer) ?
> 
> J