Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:45:07 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: =?windows-1252?Q?Viktor_=8Atujber?= <viktor.stujber@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: need confirmation of documentation problem for times(3) Message-ID: <443aq1y8zw.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <890fa77e0804021036v7ac31f70p91806679c1061709@mail.gmail.com> ("Viktor =?windows-1252?Q?=8Atujber=22's?= message of "Wed\, 2 Apr 2008 19\:36\:42 %2B0200") References: <890fa77e0804021036v7ac31f70p91806679c1061709@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Viktor =8Atujber" <viktor.stujber@gmail.com> writes: > I have been forwarded to this list from a docs bugreport > * http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3D122359 > and I am looking for confirmation of this issue. > > Transscript: >> The freebsd manpages for 'clock_t times(struct tms *tp)' say the followi= ng: >> >> The times() function returns the value of time in CLK_TCK's of a second = since >> 0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds, January 1, 1970, Coordinated Universal Ti= me. >> But after letting a sample C program print the returned value, it matches >> the system's uptime (in clock ticks). >> >> I would like to ask the bsd devs to clarify whether this is >> a documentation problem, or an implementation problem. According to /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/times.c (and my understanding of the way it uses clock_gettime()), it looks like the documentation matches what the code is intended to do. If there is a problem, it is probably in clock_gettime().=20=20 Note that times(2) is a deprecated function, and *either* behaviour is acceptable according to the standards which applied before it was deprecated.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?443aq1y8zw.fsf>