On Sat, 2019-11-09 at 01:55 +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On 8 November 2019 23:26:48 CET, Alistair Francis < > [email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-11-06 at 09:17 +0100, walter harms wrote: > > > Your are right but so far i understand > > > the idea here is to have a replacement when > > > a programm demands stime(). > > > > Thanks! Do I need to do anything else or is this going to be > > merged? > > The main argument is that SUS does not specify stime() AFAIR.
I'm not sure what you mean. This is being deprecated in glibc (it's deprecated in master) so it produces warnings when building. It's a straight forward fix with not a lot of downside. > > Apart from that: > bloat-o-meter stats? > > Compare your v1 to a possibly beneficial > xclock_settime(&ts) bloat-o-meter version? I'm not sure what you mean. Alistair > > Thanks, _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
