Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 00:50:57 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new monotime() call for all architectures. Message-ID: <200011182251.eAIMp3J13407@gratis.grondar.za> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0011190925260.767-100000@besplex.bde.org> ; from Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> "Sun, 19 Nov 2000 09:30:12 %2B1100." References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0011190925260.767-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Then where? clock.h has already been thoroughly objected to. > > clock.c is a reasonable place for it. On i386's, it needs to access > `tsc_present' which is currently only in clock.c. How much more > (or less) efficient is the inline version? One instruction versus oneinstruction-plus-function-call-overhead. > <machine/random.h> is another reasonable place for it. Sorta, except that other folks are saying that they want this too. sys/systm.h? M -- Mark Murray Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200011182251.eAIMp3J13407>