This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH][BZ #14450] Fix timeval example in manual

From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:37:01 +0530
Subject: Re: [PATCH][BZ #14450] Fix timeval example in manual
References: <20121210102338.GH11909@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com><mvmhanuw4wc.fsf@g208.suse.de><20121210111232.GI11909@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com><20121210224838.81F8F2C0C8@topped-with-meat.com>

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 02:48:38PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Why do we need such hairy code in the example?
> The timersub macro in sys/time.h is far simpler.

Actually I just noticed that the fix is wrong and the original
behaviour is correct.  The reporter (and I) looked at timeval as
tv_sec.tv_usec when it should be tv_sec + tv_usec/1000000.  They have
different semantics when tv_sec is negative.

Siddhesh

References:
- [PATCH][BZ #14450] Fix timeval example in manual
  - From: Siddhesh Poyarekar
- Re: [PATCH][BZ #14450] Fix timeval example in manual
  - From: Andreas Schwab
- Re: [PATCH][BZ #14450] Fix timeval example in manual
  - From: Siddhesh Poyarekar
- Re: [PATCH][BZ #14450] Fix timeval example in manual
  - From: Roland McGrath

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]