Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 14 Jul 2002 11:46:24 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: What is supposed to replace clock_t? |
| |
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > The only sane interface is a seconds-based one, either like /proc/uptime > > (ie ASCII floating point representation) or a mixed integer representation > > like timeval/timespec where you have seconds and micro/nanoseconds > > separately. > > Anything wrong with 64-bit nanoseconds? It's easy to work with, > being an integer type, and it survives the year 2038.
That still counts as being "seconds-based" in my book - the problem with clock_t (and jiffies) has always been that it has been based not on a globally defined time-standard, but on an implementation issue.
And we want to be able to change the implementation issue at will.
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |