Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net>:
>
> [Subject says NetBSD, but context has drifted to MacOS]
> > That said, I'm going to push - not hard, not hill-to-die-on, just moderately
> > - for remaining strict about our C99 conformance policy and culling old
> > releases/minor platforms that can't meet it.
>
> We aren't discussing C99 but rather the non-standardize way of playing with
> the clock.
I thought Net BSD 6 wa in the discussion too. But if you're only talking about
OS X, you're only talking about OS X.
> I know of two ways to handle that sort of problem. One is to use ifdefs like
> the current code. Being hard-nosed about C99 helps keep that sort of code
> clean.
>
> The other way is to have a separate module for each OS and link in the right
> one. That only works if you have a clean API for what the module has to do.
> The downside is that you usually have a lot of duplicated code, and if you
> make a change/fix in one place, you have to go check the other places, and
> remember to do it.
The Mac OS X shim is not too bad that way. It can be confined to
libntp/clockwork.c.
> By the way, "HAVE_KERNEL_PLL" is a horrible name. There is no PLL involved.
> There are two features we want. One is to be able to slew the clock. The
> other is to tweak the clock frequency, aka drift.
Yeah, you should fix that today before I declare code freeze. Which
will probably be about 5PM Eastern. I'm sure you'll choose well.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
