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.
sure, but the more esoteric the clocks, the less likely _that_ part is to be portable anyway.
> 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.
are there any two linux libcs that are abi compatible? i didn't think so.
Would this motivate musl to accept patches for the optional bases that
come with C23? Or maybe the whole set?
i think bionic and musl are philosophically quite different there --- musl seems to try to stick to the exact letter of ISO/POSIX, whereas with bionic i accept that for everything you can possibly imagine, _someone_ will be trying to do it, and -- unless you're actually going to prohibit it via selinux/seccomp for security or privacy reasons -- i may as well make it as minimally painful as possible.
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 ::