This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] libfortran/29121 -- Add real(10) and real(16) cpu_time routines

From: FX Coudert <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
To: Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
Cc: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:40:53 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libfortran/29121 -- Add real(10) and real(16) cpu_time routines
References: <20060929203803.GA57101@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <5443C2AE-EFAA-4D5D-B305-C3B2C8776D77@gmail.com> <20060929213346.GA57371@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>

I don't know a portable way to test cpu_time.

I was thinking about simply a compile & linking test, with cpu_time called for both real and double precision, as well as a large real kind if available. Getting actual values from cpu_time would be, as you say, a pain.

FX

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] libfortran/29121 -- Add real(10) and real(16) cpu_time routines
  - From: Steve Kargl

References:
- [PATCH] libfortran/29121 -- Add real(10) and real(16) cpu_time routines
  - From: Steve Kargl
- Re: [PATCH] libfortran/29121 -- Add real(10) and real(16) cpu_time routines
  - From: FX Coudert
- Re: [PATCH] libfortran/29121 -- Add real(10) and real(16) cpu_time routines
  - From: Steve Kargl

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]