http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53456
Janne Blomqvist <jb at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
URL| |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
| |atches/2012-05/msg01563.htm
| |l
Last reconfirmed| |2012-05-23
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Janne Blomqvist <jb at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-23 14:50:44
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> VxWorks does not provide the process time in most versions and for most
> cases.
> In fact, many VxWorks applications are not processes in the traditional sense
> but instead tasks/threads spawned by the kernel in kernel space.
>
> If returning an error is the preferred behavior for gf_cputime, then the code
> as is should work.
Yes, I do think it's better to return some kind of error rather than trying to
fake a value.
> But it doesn't seem optimal (IMHO) to only have second
> resolution for gf_gettime.
Yes, fair enough. The patch I posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01563.html
should fix this.
> Also, I started working on this before realizing that the reason it failed to
> compile initially was mis-configuration. It should compile as-is, just not
> work as well as (I believe) it could.
I see, thanks for the clarification. Attention to detail is appreciated, as I
don't have access to a vxworks system to test on myself.
