Re: [musl] C23 implications for C libraries

["Jₑₙₛ Gustedt" <jens.gustedt@inria.fr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1406 bytes --]

Hi,

on Wed, 3 May 2023 15:58:26 -0700 you (enh <enh@google.com>) wrote:

> (i share others' skepticism that timespec_get() is very useful,

I don't think that these interfaces by themselves are the most
interesting. The original motivation to create these interfaces stem
from the creation the integration of threads in to the C standard. And
there the monotonic and thread-specific clocks make all their sense.

But also having process cpu usage in a well-defined interface (`clock`
usage is not portable for that) is a win.

> and especially that non-ISO bases will ever be useful to anyway, but
> i like the idea of allowing future additions to "just work" with an
> old libc enough that i've implemented bionic's
> timespec_get()/timespec_getres() in this style.)

Great!

Do you have a link to that? The particular choices of values become
part of the ABI, sort-of. So it would be better to be consistent
between implementations.

Would this motivate musl to accept patches for the optional bases that
come with C23? Or maybe the whole set?

Thanks
Jₑₙₛ

-- 
:: ICube :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: deputy director ::
:: Université de Strasbourg :::::::::::::::::::::: ICPS ::
:: INRIA Nancy Grand Est :::::::::::::::::::::::: Camus ::
:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ☎ +33 368854536 ::
:: https://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]