> i took a quick look at the runtime·nanotime, and it looks like it's being > used for gettimeofday, which shouldn't be super performance sensitive.
I'm on thin ice here, but I seem to remember that the crucial issue was the resolution (nanosecond) and the expectation that Plan 9 would have to match (for portability purposes) the quality available on other operating system. Curiously, I'm pretty certain that it was the issue of an fd that remained open (something to do with caching the /dev/time fd, if I remember right) that caused some tests to fall apart, probably because a test for leaking fds actually needed to cache the time of day for time out purposes. Two birds with one stone? On the one hand you gain accuracy and on the other you actually successfully complete the tests. ++L
