On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 17:55 +0800, Pauli Nieminen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:48 AM, ykzhao <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 17:02 +0800, Mikhail Gusarov wrote: > >> Twas brillig at 16:45:34 24.08.2010 UTC+08 when [email protected] did > >> gyre and gimble: > >> > >> y> What side effect will it bring if we define it explicitly and use it > >> y> when it is not defined in system header? > >> > >> Bad side-effect is X.org becoming OS again :) It isn't hard to require > >> newer linux-libc-dev headers for CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE definition. > > > > How about limiting it to linux platform as mentioned by Samuel > > Thibault? > > > > The change of this patch happens in the file of os/utils.c, which has > > the dependency on the OS. Not sure whether it will be too strict that > > the glibc header file needs to be updated in order to use the > > CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE posix timer. > > > > Now some latest linux distribution already adds the definition of > > CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE. But on the previous distribution, the user still > > can enjoy the benefit of using CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE posix timer after > > updating the linux kernel while the gcc tool doesn't need to be updated. > > > > That use case is very unlikely to happen excluding developers. Nearly > everyone else will be using this patch in system with new enough > headers that do define CLOCK_MONOTIC_COARSE.
Thanks for the comments. OK. I will limit it to linux platform and won't create it if it is not defined in header file. Thanks. Yakui > > > Thanks. > > yakui > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected]: X.Org development > > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
