Diffstat (limited to 'open_issues/clock_gettime.mdwn')
1 files changed, 118 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/open_issues/clock_gettime.mdwn b/open_issues/clock_gettime.mdwn
index 5345ed6b..83ad81e8 100644
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011, 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
@@ -23,7 +23,8 @@ applications assume that it is.
What about adding a nanosecond-precision clock, too? --[[tschwinge]]
-IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-08-26:
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-08-26
< pinotree> youpi: thing is: apparently i found a simple way to have a
monotonic clock as mmap-able device inside gnumach
@@ -40,7 +41,8 @@ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-08-26:
< braunr> sure
< youpi> and that's the way I was considering implementing it
-IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-09-06:
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-09-06
<pinotree> yeah, i had a draft of improved idea for also handling
@@ -69,3 +71,116 @@ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-09-06:
<tschwinge> And it will forever be a witness of the evolving of this
map_time interface. :-)
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-11
+In context of [[select]].
+ <pinotree> braunr: would you send for review (and inclusion) your
+ time_data_t addition?
+ <pinotree> this way we could add nanosecs-based utime rpc (and then their
+ implementation in libc)
+ <braunr> pinotree: it's part of the hurd branch
+ <braunr> do you want it sent separately ?
+ <pinotree> yeah
+ <braunr> ok
+ <braunr> let me get it right first :)
+ <pinotree> sure :)
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-12
+ <braunr> pinotree:
+ <pinotree> uh nice
+ <pinotree> will need two small inline functions to convert time_data_t <->
+ timespec, but that's it
+ <braunr> hm right
+ <braunr> i could have thought about it
+ <braunr> but i'll leave it for another patch :p
+ <pinotree> oh sure, no hurry
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-19
+ <youpi> braunr: about time_data_t, I get it's needed that it be an array
+ <youpi> so it can be passed by reference, not by value?
+ <braunr> by address, yes
+ <braunr> that's the difference between array and struct
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-25
+ <youpi> braunr: why did you want to see time_data passed as pointer, not as
+ <braunr> to microoptimize
+ <braunr> the struct is 2 64-bit integers
+ <youpi> well, we already pass structs along in a few cases,
+ e.g. io_statbuf_t, rusage_t, etc.
+ <youpi> be it written t.sec or t->sec, it seems odd
+ <youpi> copying 2 64bit integers is not much compared to the potential for
+ bugs here
+ <braunr> bugs ?
+ <youpi> yes, as in trying to access t, passing a wrong pointer, etc.
+ <youpi> or the reader frowning on "why is this case different than the
+ <braunr> well, i'm already usually frowning when i see what mig does ..
+ <youpi> right
+ <youpi> on the plus side, it's only the client side, i.e. mostly glibc,
+ which sees the t
+ <braunr> and the practice established by my patch is to convert to struct
+ timespec as soon as possible
+ <braunr> the direct use of this type is therefore limited
+ <youpi> could we define time_data_t as a struct time_data * instead of
+ struct time_data ?
+ <youpi> (in the.h)
+ <youpi> that would make more sense to define a struct time_data, and pass a
+ pointer to it
+ <braunr> i'm not sure
+ <braunr> the mach server writing guide was very clear about array implying
+ a C array too
+ <braunr> and i remember having compilation problems before doing that
+ <braunr> but i don't remember their nature exactly
+ <youpi> I'm not sure to understand what you said about converting to struct
+ <youpi> what makes it not possible now?
+ <youpi> and what is the relation with being an array or a pointer?
+ <braunr> concerning struct timespec, what i mean is that the functions
+ called by the mig stub code directly convert time_data_t to a struct
+ timespec (which is the real type used throughout the hurd code)
+ <braunr> about the rest, i'm not sure, i'd have to try again
+ <braunr> mig just assumes it's an array
+ <youpi> and why not just using struct timespec?
+ <youpi> (for the mig type too)
+ <braunr> my brain can't correctly compute variable sized types in mig
+ definition files
+ <braunr> i wanted something that would remain correct for the 64-bit port
+ <youpi> ah, you mean because tv_nsec is a long, which will not be the same
+ <braunr> and tv_sec being a time_t (thus a long too)
+ <youpi> but we have the same issue e.g. for the rusage structure, don't we?
+ <braunr> yes
+ <youpi> so we'll have to fix things for that too anyway
+ <braunr> sure
+ <youpi> making a special case will not necessarily help
+ <braunr> but it doesn't mean new interfaces have to be buggy too
+ <youpi> well, using the proper type in the server itself is nicer
+ <youpi> instead of having to convert
+ <braunr> yes
+ <braunr> i'm not exactly sure where to declare struct timespec then
+ <braunr> should it be declared in hurd_types.h, and simply reused by the
+ libc headers ?
+ <youpi> ? AIUI, it's the converse, hurd_types.h uses the struct timespec
+ from libc headers, and defines timespec_t
+ <braunr> ok
+ <youpi> timespec_t being the internal type whose definition gets done right
+ for mig to do the right thing
+ <braunr> yes
+ <braunr> i see
+ <braunr> so, you'd like a struct of integer_t instead of an array of
+ <youpi> for our current 32bit userland yes
+ <braunr> do you want to make the changes yourself or should i add a new
+ branch ?
+ <youpi> and we'll make that a 64bit struct when we have a64bit userland