Re: timevar: further work

[Akim Demaille]

> Le 11 oct. 2018 à 20:05, Bruno Haible <address@hidden> a écrit :
> 
> Hi Akim,
> 
>> Ok.  But since really, this tool is not for high quality profile,
>> but just to get cost estimates, I did not aim at that level of
>> precision. ...
>> Also, I don’t think it makes sense to have more than 2 digits
>> of precision: we are very likely to be within noise already
>> with 2.
> 
> Not all programs take more than 1 second of run time. If a program
> takes 0.03 seconds of run time, and the 'wall clock' column would
> give me a good understanding of what's going on if printed with
> 6 decimal places, why do you want to truncate it to 2 decimal places?
> (It's clear that the 'CPU user' and 'CPU system' columns will not be
> useful in this situation; I don't argue for 2 vs. 3 decimal places
> on these columns.)

At some point we agreed to use a dynamic scale: s or ms for instance.
I’m really referring to the number of significant digits.