From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Nov 18 14:51:25 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from gratis.grondar.za (grouter.grondar.za [196.7.18.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A201837B479 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:51:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from grondar.za (grapevine.grondar.za [196.7.18.17]) by gratis.grondar.za (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eAIMp3J13407; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 00:51:03 +0200 (SAST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.za) Message-Id: <200011182251.eAIMp3J13407@gratis.grondar.za> To: Bruce Evans Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new monotime() call for all architectures. References: In-Reply-To: ; from Bruce Evans "Sun, 19 Nov 2000 09:30:12 +1100." Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 00:50:57 +0200 From: Mark Murray Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > 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. > 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