This is the mail archive of the
glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
[Bug libc/220] IA64: return EINVAL if ITC is an unreliable time source on clock_gettime(CLOCK_PROCESS_TIMEID)
- From: "clameter at sgi dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sources dot redhat dot com>
- To: glibc-bugs at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 10 Aug 2004 17:17:27 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libc/220] IA64: return EINVAL if ITC is an unreliable time source on clock_gettime(CLOCK_PROCESS_TIMEID)
- References: <20040614204748.220.clameter@sgi.com>
- Reply-to: sourceware-bugzilla at sources dot redhat dot com
------- 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.