On 2026-08-20 18:35:08 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen via Mutt-dev wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 01:26:57PM +0100, Ian Collier via Mutt-dev wrote: > > The fact is that because time() has coarse granularity > > it is only updated every few milliseconds, and if the real-time clock's > > seconds counter ticks during that gap then the result from time() will > > show the old value, not the current one, until the next update. > > > but that's an implementation detail, not something that inherently follows > from coarse granularity. a reasonable default interpretation would be that > the sub-seconds are missing, but the seconds are still accurate - which is > exactly what everybody was assuming so far for time(). that makes the commit > message an apparent non-sequitur without spelling out the background info.
No, the seconds are not accurate. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[email protected]> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Pascaline project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
