ykzhao, le Tue 24 Aug 2010 08:32:48 +0800, a écrit : > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 23:25 +0800, Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 10:23 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:20:05 +0800 > > > > From: Zhao Yakui <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > os/utils.c | 14 +++++++++++++- > > > > 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/os/utils.c b/os/utils.c > > > > index 51455cc..a08d591 100644 > > > > --- a/os/utils.c > > > > +++ b/os/utils.c > > > > @@ -242,6 +242,10 @@ OsSignal(int sig, OsSigHandlerPtr handler) > > > > #endif > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > +#ifndef CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE > > > > +#define CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE 6 > > > > +#endif > > > > > > What if an OS doesn't have CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE, but uses the clock > > > ID 6 for some other purpose? > > > > Then this patch would be wrong. > > > > NAK on that basis. > > Yes. Agree. > > How about using the constant value(6) directly?
Err, you must be kidding... #ifdef __linux__ # ifndef CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE # define CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE 6 # endif #endif should however be fine. Samuel _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
