From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20977 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2004 17:17:27 -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 20964 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2004 17:17:27 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:17:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040810171727.20963.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "clameter at sgi 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/msg00104.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From clameter at sgi dot com 2004-08-10 17:17 ------- Subject: Re: IA64: return EINVAL if ITC is an unreliable time source on clock_gettime(CLOCK_PROCESS_TIMEID) I thought this was the reason behind it but it would have been good to have this clarificatione earlier. I have submitted a change to the manpage for clock_gettime to explain the need to call clock_getcpuclockid and the difficulties with the use of CPU timer registers in SMP settings last Friday. On Mon, 10 Aug 2004, drepper at redhat dot com wrote: > > ------- 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 reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. > -- 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.