From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Oct 28 3:43:39 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B2A37B403 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 03:43:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9SBgsS33644; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 12:42:54 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Bernd Walter Cc: Matthew Dillon , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: illegal &time_t useage in /usr/src In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 28 Oct 2001 11:35:09 +0100." <20011028113509.A48670@cicely8.cicely.de> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 12:42:54 +0100 Message-ID: <33642.1004269374@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20011028113509.A48670@cicely8.cicely.de>, Bernd Walter writes: >On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 11:38:56PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: >But so far the discussion went completely to time_t only. >What about struct timespec and struct timeval? We can't get rid of those, they API used. >There is no functional need to have long defined tv_nsec and tv_usec >fields as long as no spec says so. Right, I don't think anybody actually insisted on that. >The tv_sec field on struct timeval would still be 32 bit on 32 bit >platforms. You lost me there, I don't think that is mandated. >What about sub nsec representations? I'll deal with that, I wrote our timecounter code and I know what needs done. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message