Hello, Svante Signell, le Sun 29 Jun 2014 16:35:42 +0200, a écrit : > Looking at libsamplerate test problems, I found that clock(3) used > there is not reliable. Strange results are obtained on too Linux with a > simple test program.
What do you mean by "strange"? The output I get $ ./test start = 3870 end = 3910 cpu_time_used = 0.000040 makes sense. > Using clock_gettime(2) instead on both Linux and > Hurd works perfectly. Err, but clock_gettime returns something completely different than clock(). > The Linux man page for clock(3) says that it is > implemented on top of clock_gettime(2) since glibc 2.18 and later, not > on times(2) as before. Is that true for Hurd too? See the various clock.c files in the glibc source: the hurd one hasn't changed at all, while the Linux one has indeed. > The following simple program gives unreliable results both on Linux and > especially Hurd: Again, what do you mean by "unreliable"? What did you expect? Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140629205603.gy6...@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr
