On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:20 AM Mike Crowe wrote:
>
> On Sunday 04 November 2018 at 10:32:38 +, Mike Crowe wrote:
> > * Function naming:
> >
> > Several proposals have been made for naming:
>
> I only had one reply to the naming suggestions below, so I've combed
> through prior emails
On Sunday 04 November 2018 at 10:32:38 +, Mike Crowe wrote:
> * Function naming:
>
> Several proposals have been made for naming:
I only had one reply to the naming suggestions below, so I've combed
through prior emails looking for preferences there. I apologise if I missed
your preference.
> On Nov 4, 2018, at 5:32 AM, Mike Crowe wrote:
>
> * The problem:
>
> POSIX functions that take an absolute time point as a timeout parameter use
> the CLOCK_REALTIME clock. This clock can be warped, particularly on
> personal or embedded devices, which makes it unsuitable for use for
>
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 5:16 PM Mark Harris wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 13:14, Mike Crowe wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday 27 October 2018 at 15:26:07 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Oct 27, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Mike Crowe
>> > > wrote:
>> > > Looking through POSIX Base Specifications
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 13:14, Mike Crowe
wrote:
> On Saturday 27 October 2018 at 15:26:07 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> >
> > > On Oct 27, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Mike Crowe
> wrote:
> > > Looking through POSIX Base Specifications Issue 7, I
> > > believe that the following other functions lack a
On Saturday 27 October 2018 at 17:07:00 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> The nice thing about being able to set the clock in an attribute or some
> other way (e.g., pthread_set_preferred_clock) is that you only have to do
> it once, as opposed to potentially modifying lots of other code, even in
>
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 4:13 PM, Mike Crowe wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 27 October 2018 at 15:26:07 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Mike Crowe
>>> wrote:
>>> Looking through POSIX Base Specifications Issue 7, I
>>> believe that the following other functions lack
