From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12758 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2004 02:14:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12746 invoked by uid 48); 10 Aug 2004 02:14:25 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 02:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040810021425.12745.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "drepper at redhat dot com" To: glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20040614204748.220.clameter@sgi.com> References: <20040614204748.220.clameter@sgi.com> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sources.redhat.com Subject: [Bug libc/220] IA64: return EINVAL if ITC is an unreliable time source on clock_gettime(CLOCK_PROCESS_TIMEID) X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From drepper at redhat dot com 2004-08-10 02:14 ------- I have said several times already that there is no reason for this change. The clock_getcpuclockid provides the information. There is no reason to duplicate all this work over and over again in the gettime function. If somebody disregards the information that the clock is not available they don't deserve better. And maybe somebody wants to continue using the information, e.g., if a process is tied to one specific processor. Then the itc value is usable. Beside, despite being told you have to follow the coding standard you chose to ignore this. That's certainly a good way to get any of your changes accepted. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.