Re: [musl] C23 implications for C libraries

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1345 bytes --]

enh,

on Thu, 4 May 2023 09:07:30 -0700 you (enh <enh@google.com>) wrote:

> only having been involved with POSIX and not WG14, doesn't the latter
> take existing practice into account like the former does?

In this case WG14 considers the POSIX interfaces as existing
practice. We just have the problem that unfortunately in the past it
was decided not to map the full feature set of the clock interfaces
into C, but to somehow rename and reduce things to these `timespec`
interfaces. (I was not yet there, then, but my understanding is that
this was added a bit in a hurry relatively late in the process for
C11.)

The argument that convinced WG14 to take in these three new optional
time bases is to avoid diverging practice in the future. So if
somebody adds a monotonic clock (for example) to a C implementation,
it should have the semantics as described. And something like that (a
monotonic clock) has for example been sought by users for the thread
interfaces that use time limits.


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 --]