Fleischer, Julie N wrote:
>>george anzinger wrote:
>>Now, as to this particular issue, the 1003.1b-1993 standard
>>in paragraph 14.2.1.2 says "The effect of setting a clock
>>via clock_settime() on armed per process timers associated
>>with that clock is implementation defined."
>
>
> I see. Since I'm writing tests towards the 1003.1-2001 standards, I'll need
> to be careful where there's a difference between that one and 1003.1b-1993,
> as is the case with this issue. (If you'd still appreciate knowing the
> deltas, I can still let you know when there is a difference in the
> 1003.1-2001 standard and the current implementation.)
>
> In the 1003.1-2001 standards, it actually adds the qualifier that the line
> you quoted applies to non-CLOCK_REALTIME clocks. If I'm interpreting that
> standard correctly, CLOCK_REALTIME clocks should require that absolute
> timers use the latest value of the clock and not behave relatively.
>
> I'll make sure that I check the 1003.1b-1993 standards as well, though, when
> reporting future issues.
It'd be nice if the test suite had a large number of point tests,
and for each standard, a list of expected passes and fails.
You'd break up the clock_settime test into a couple of point tests,
one for each standard, maybe.
- Dan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:41 EST