The basic idea is to simplify things. In the new world, there is only one
DNS thread. To do a lookup, the main thread starts a worker thread with a
pointer to a peer structure. The worker thread returns the return code and
answer in global storage and self destructs. Maybe it raises a signa
Yo All!
Mark asked me to dig deeper.
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 19:06:53 -0700
"Gary E. Miller" wrote:
> > Comparing against LOGTOD(-31) will fail for any value less than
> > ~0.2ns (the minimum l_fp fraction).
>
> Yup. Except the results is a constant, and having to compute a log
> every time on a
Hal Murray :
> Do we want a configure option to build/run without DNS lookups? Even if we
> don't, we should probably structure the code to support that.
Agreed with the second. But we've got enough obscure seldom-used
options that I'm strongly against adding another exposed one without
demonst
Anybody recognize this?
TEST(lfpfunc, FDF_RoundTrip)../../tests/libntp/lfpfunc.c:264:TEST(lfpfunc,
FDF_R
oundTrip):FAIL: Values Not Within Delta
Inserting a printf:
double d = lfptod(temp);
printf("## %f %f\n", eps(op2), d);
TEST_ASSERT_DOUBLE_WITHIN(eps(op2), 0.0
Hal Murray :
> Anybody recognize this?
>
> TEST(lfpfunc, FDF_RoundTrip)../../tests/libntp/lfpfunc.c:264:TEST(lfpfunc,
> FDF_R
> oundTrip):FAIL: Values Not Within Delta
>
> Inserting a printf:
> double d = lfptod(temp);
> printf("## %f %f\n", eps(op2), d);
> TEST_A
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Good target for a bisect.
Anybody else have access to a NetBSD system?
I'd rather work on DNS.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
I've started serious work on the DNS cleanup. It will probably take several
of days - maybe longer.
---
What's the current story on broadcast? What do we support? Does anybody
test it?
I know we ripped out a lot of that stuff, but it's still a keyword for the
parser and still documented.
