On 15/04/2020 14:29, Utkarsh Rai wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 5:35 PM Sebastian Huber <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de <mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote:On 15/04/2020 14:02, Utkarsh Rai wrote:> + status = clock_gettime( CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &end_time ); > + rtems_test_assert( status == 0 ); > + > + rtems_test_assert( (end_time.tv_sec-init_time.tv_sec) == 0 ); Is end_time.tv_sec - init_time.tv_sec == 0 under all circumstances? My idea was to check for a 1ns delay with a reasonable amount of overhead, hence I checked for end_time.tv_sec - init_time.tv_sec == 0.Exists there a value of init_time for which end_time.tv_sec != init_time.tv_sec and still 1ns elapsed?Sorry, maybe I am confused in my concept, kidly help me out. I want to produce a 1ns delay, so I make a call to clock_nanosleep with flag value as 0 (to sleep for specified time) and the delay being 1ns. I recorded the time before the sleep call and after the sleep call. Now, I want to check if the delay produced was actually 1ns with a reasonable overhead, my assumption for an unreasonable overhead was that if I specify a delay of 1ns
Up to here everything is fine.
and I get a delay in seconds, it would be an error.
Think about this once more.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
