Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 09:38 +0200: > In message <20051029005719.I20147_at_fledge.watson.org>, Robert Watson writes: > > >It strikes me that replacing time(3) with something that retrieves > >CLOCK_SECOND shouldn't harm time(3) semantics. > > It will mean that time(3) is can do minor (~1/hz) timetravel relative > to the other calls: > > clock_gettime() time(3) > > 123.999999123 > 123 > 124.000000234 > 123 > (hardclock happens) > 124.001020934 > 124 > > If we can live with this, there is no problem. This also gets into the question how do you round a second? :) I think this is fine, or make the leap to 124 on the hardclock before we hit 124... either way, the error introduced is much less than the acuracy returned by times, and should be safely ignored... (and the delay in change is balanced out by the previous delay)... If you cared that much that you were .001 seconds after 124, you'd be using a more acurate clock... -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."Received on Sat Oct 29 2005 - 19:05:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:46 UTC