On Sat, Dec 2, 2023, at 7:33 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: > Zack Weinberg wrote: >> Would it help if we added a command line option to autom4te that made >> it report whether it thought it could use high resolution timestamps? >> Versions of autom4te that didn't recognize this option should be >> conservatively assumed not to support them. > > Why not just add that information to the --version message? Add a > "(HiRes)" tag somewhere if Time::HiRes is available?
Either way is no problem from my end, but it would be more work for automake (parsing --version output, instead of just checking the exit status of autom4te --assert-high-resolution-timestamp-support) Karl, do you have a preference here? I can make whatever you decide on happen, in the next couple of days. >> (Of course there's the additional wrinkle that whether high >> resolution timestamps *work* depends on what filesystem >> autom4te.cache is stored in > > Is this actually still a problem (other than for ensuring the cache is > used in the testsuite) I don't *think* so but I don't understand the problem 100% so I could be missing something. zw
