On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 08:32:48AM +0800, ykzhao wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 23:25 +0800, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 10:23 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > 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? 

That doesn't change anything - if a system is using ID 6 for something
else, then using 6 is wholly incorrect, no matter whether you use the
constant directly, define some other symbol for it, or whatever.

#ifdef CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE
/* include support for CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE */
#else
/* it's not there so don't */
#endif

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel

Reply via email to