On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:
> On quarta-feira, 15 de junho de 2016 16:42:16 PDT Gregg Reynolds wrote: > > Here's a nutty idea: just use time(). Does Iotivity really need > sub-second > > timing? I don't know the code that well but I'm going to go out on a limb > > and say no. > > We may need monotonic timing, though. > Strictly speaking I suppose we always want monotonic timing to measure elapsed time. But CLOCK_MONOTONIC is optional. What if it's not there? In any case, it seems useful to make a distinction between sub-second timing and monotonic timing. We also have timespec_get (c11 <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/standards>). I guess there's no getting around some kind of conditional logic, until such time as all OS vendors agree. Also, I've recently discovered the concept of "tickless kernel". Is that relevant? I'm guessing no, but I've been wrong befores. G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20160615/a9bfe9ac/attachment.html>
