From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3279
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: sign (in)consistency between architectures
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 15:08:03 +0200
Message-ID: <20130502130802.GP12689@port70.net>
References: <51814B3F.4040005@eservices.virginia.edu>
 <20130501180015.GN12689@port70.net>
 <20130501200007.GM20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20130501224132.GN20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <5181C3B4.4040801@eservices.virginia.edu>
 <20130502024753.GO20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <1367482359.28119.118.camel@eris.loria.fr>
 <20130502101351.GO12689@port70.net>
 <1367496757.28119.196.camel@eris.loria.fr>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1367500096 1848 80.91.229.3 (2 May 2013 13:08:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 13:08:16 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-3283-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu May 02 15:08:16 2013
Return-path: <musl-return-3283-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-3283-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1UXtFA-0001AD-0e
	for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 02 May 2013 15:08:16 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 21566 invoked by uid 550); 2 May 2013 13:08:14 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 21558 invoked from network); 2 May 2013 13:08:14 -0000
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1367496757.28119.196.camel@eris.loria.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3279
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3279>

* Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@inria.fr> [2013-05-02 14:12:37 +0200]:
> Am Donnerstag, den 02.05.2013, 12:13 +0200 schrieb Szabolcs Nagy:
> > 
> >   t = (double)clock();
> > 
> > (eg the time module in python does this) where interesting
> > low bits may get lost if clock_t is uint64_t
> 
> 
> *and* if the actual value is larger than (1ull << 50) or something
> like that.


larger than (1ull << 53)

so it does not matter if the counter always start from 0
at process startup

btw the times() fallback in the current clock code seems
to be wrong: it multiplies the result by 100 which would
mean 10000 Hz kernel clock tick