Hi, on Wed, 3 May 2023 15:58:26 -0700 you (enh ) 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 ::