From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: point-at-final-line Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:51:25 +0200 Message-ID: <831si8imea.fsf@gnu.org> References: <868tckgl1y.fsf@zoho.com> <87vafom6af.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <86r2qcf1h2.fsf@zoho.com> <86wp01byil.fsf@zoho.com> <86d11sbtch.fsf@zoho.com> <86372obou1.fsf@zoho.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1517248931 27310 195.159.176.226 (29 Jan 2018 18:02:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:02:11 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 29 19:02:07 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1egDki-0006Bh-6K for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:01:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54102 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1egDmi-0006BS-Nx for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:04:00 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51694) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1egDaV-00059u-CM for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:51:24 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1egDaQ-0003lW-HX for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:51:23 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:34168) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1egDaQ-0003lK-Dt for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:51:18 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1898 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1egDaP-0006b0-PY for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:51:18 -0500 In-reply-to: <86372obou1.fsf@zoho.com> (message from Emanuel Berg on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 17:40:38 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:115877 Archived-At: > From: Emanuel Berg > Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 17:40:38 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > (But I'm sure that if you run each function > > many times in a loop, you will see some > > differences in timing. Right now, I think the > > times are below your system clock resolution, > > so you are measuring quantization noise.) > > Well, you know what they say, what you can't > measure, you cannot control. I'm saying that you _can_ measure this: just run each function many times in a loop, and then divide the time by the number of iterations. This is a standard method of timing short code fragments.