On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:38 PM, nathan binkert<n...@binkert.org> wrote: >> I'll comment on the rest of this discussion once I've had a chance to >> read through it and think about it. My immediate thought is that while >> a simplified manual roll over sort of mechanism would avoid using the >> library functions and their potential system dependence, even >> something simple like keeping track of when to roll the month over >> would be not hard but non-trivial. Then there are all the weird, fancy >> leap seconds and spring forwards and fall backwards, etc., that are >> possibly not very important but would be missing. I was trying to >> avoid having to figure out (and potentially screwing up) those sorts >> of considerations when I went with the library functions. > Yeah, I want to totally skip the spring forward fall backward, leap > second kind of thing.
If it's all UTC then there's no daylight savings issue. Plus given the rate at which we simulate, we'd have to have a very poorly chosen starting time & date to simulate across a leap second (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second: "Leap seconds occur only at the end of a UTC month, and have only ever been inserted at the end of June 30 or December 31."). So if our canonical fake wall-clock time is Jan 1 (which I think it is), we'd have to simulate 6 months to hit a leap second... Basically I don't see a problem with using the library functions. Steve _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
