Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:04:14 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, threads@freebsd.org, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge@nedprod.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Patch] C1X threading support Message-ID: <86vcp8sfld.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <201112211854.40798.hselasky@c2i.net> (Hans Petter Selasky's message of "Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:54:40 %2B0100") References: <4EF059DC.26433.B55D8036@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com> <4EF084A8.32369.B604AD16@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com> <E6656282-8FD0-4C64-A2C9-BD10B832B18A@bsdimp.com> <201112211854.40798.hselasky@c2i.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> writes: > Absolute timeouts is no good idea! We should stick with kernel-ticks when= =20 > possible :-) There is no such thing as a kernel in the C standard. All it knows about is the implementation and the program. The best solution would probably have been a timescale that counts the time elapsed since the start of the program. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86vcp8sfld.fsf>