Martin Lambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there any interest in these changes? Does the patch need
> improvements?
There's interest, but I haven't had a chance to look at it
(I need to get more time :-).
On Thu, 25. May 2006, 21:16:03 +0200, Martin Lambers wrote:
> This new version of the patch tests HAVE__FTIME first, so that on native
> W32 platforms
> void _ftime (struct _timeb *timeptr);
> is used instead of
> void ftime (struct timeb *timeptr); .
Is there any interest in these changes? Does
On Tue, 23. May 2006, 21:44:20 +0200, Martin Lambers wrote:
> OK, I added a version for ftime().
Sorry, this version has a problem:
Newer versions of MinGW not only have
void _ftime (struct _timeb *timeptr);
but also
void ftime (struct timeb *timeptr); .
Thus both HAVE_FTIME and HAVE__FTIME are
Paul Eggert wrote:
> Some old SVR4 systems put a one-argument
> gettimeofday prototype into their . Also, Solaris 2.4 has
> a one-argument prototype for C++ only.
The Solaris 2.4 has:
#ifdef __cplusplus
int gettimeofday(struct timeval *, void *);
int settimeofday(struct timeval *, void *);
#end
On Tue, 23. May 2006, 14:32:14 +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Similar things should be done for systems that have no gettimeofday()
> but do have an 'ftime' function and 'struct timeb' declared in
> . (Old SysVR2 or SysVR3 systems. Microsoft did not invent this
> interface; they only prepended the un
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> + AC_CACHE_CHECK([for gettimeofday whose signature conforms to POSIX],
>
> What's the point of checking the signature? The only signatures of
> gettimeofday() I've seen are:
>
> int gettimeofday (struct timeval * tp, ...);
> int gettimeofday (st
Hi,
Thanks for improving the gettimeofday replacement.
> +# if HAVE__FTIME
> +
> + struct _timeb timebuf;
> +
> + _ftime (&timebuf);
> + tv->tv_sec = timebuf.time;
> + tv->tv_usec = timebuf.millitm * 1000;
> +
> + return 0;
> +
Similar things should be done for systems that have no gettim
