From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-hacker-return-8119-listarch-libc-hacker=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 15438 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2004 20:22:38 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-hacker-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-hacker-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-hacker-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-hacker-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 15418 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2004 20:22:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO gateway.sf.frob.com) (64.81.54.130)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 Dec 2004 20:22:37 -0000
Received: from magilla.sf.frob.com (magilla.sf.frob.com [198.49.250.228])
	by gateway.sf.frob.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8323C357B; Wed,  1 Dec 2004 12:22:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from magilla.sf.frob.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by magilla.sf.frob.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB1KMYaG012284;
	Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:22:34 -0800
Received: (from roland@localhost)
	by magilla.sf.frob.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id iB1KMXkf012280;
	Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:22:33 -0800
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:22:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200412012022.iB1KMXkf012280@magilla.sf.frob.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: Steve Munroe <sjmunroe@us.ibm.com>,
	libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com, dgm69@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Whats up with _POSIX_CPUTIME
In-Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek's message of  Wednesday, 1 December 2004 21:20:17 +0100 <20041201202017.GN8259@sunsite.mff.cuni.cz>
X-Antipastobozoticataclysm: Bariumenemanilow
X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2

> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 12:00:06PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > Did you just mean the s/#if #defined/#if defined/ in posix/tst-regex2.c?
> > > That's the only thing I found during testing...
> > 
> > That's the only thing I noticed, but it indicated the patch wasn't tested.
> > 
> > I don't like the __HAVE_CPUTIME stuff.  Already on ia64 it is a runtime
> > determination if the clocks are available.  
> 
> So should I redo that just to call __sysconf (_SC_{THREAD_,}CPUTIME)?

I think so, yes.  Or anyway, cope with runtime failures somehow.  I'd have
to look into the code closer to see if there is an obvious cheaper way to
catch it.