Ah, thank you... I'll get on it as soon as i can (some thing just came
up and more of my time will be taken by them)...

Nathan Baker wrote:
>
>
> There are several ways to accomplish this.
>
> You can use the 'clock' system call and read the 'process CPU time'
> from the structure.
>
> You can use the 'getrusage' system call and read the 'user time used'
> from the structure.
>
> Or, you can use the 'times' (get process times) system call and see if
> it works the way it is documented.
>
> Nathan.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Shane U. Undisclosed <kohlrak@...>
> *To:* DesktopLinuxAsm@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 11, 2009 5:35:18 PM
> *Subject:* [DesktopLinuxAsm] Benchmarking?
>
> I'm always told how SSE2 routines always beat the FPU's hard coded
> routines, however i've never actually seen this quantified. Yes, SIMD
> is good in theory, but can it really beat scalar routines? It uses
> more memory (more instructions streamed), and it's not hard coded.
> I've seen some C code trying to quantify this, but naturally the speed
> gain presented has not only been inconsistent (I assume the fault is
> in failing to consider the task scheduler), but the gain seems less
> than 10% every time for the functions that i feel matter the most
> (fsincos and atan). More so, I've found some code that is
> theoretically faster than a nice Taylor, and seems pretty accurate
> when i typed in the function on my TI-NSpire. I was wondering if
> anyone had any code laying around that they use to benchmark
> procedures while taking the schedualer out of the equation. It might
> also help the community in the event that they do not have a
> benchmarker handy to try other things.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> mailto:DesktopLinuxAsm-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DesktopLinuxAsm-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com>
>
>
>
>