From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Oct 26 9:39:33 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A99837B401 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:39:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9QGcsM03465; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:38:54 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Julian Elischer Cc: Terry Lambert , Peter Wemm , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:49:41 PDT." Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:38:54 +0200 Message-ID: <3463.1004114334@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , Ju lian Elischer writes: >considering that we didn't have ANY sub-second resolution for a long time >I think that >looking for sub microsecond resolution on access times is pointless at >this time.. I am looking for it at this time, not _for_ this time, but _for_ the future. If state of the art equipment can break the make(1) assumption today, what do you think the life expectancy of the designed concept is ? Certainly not 10+ years. And have you considered that there may be other and stronger requirements than make(1) and that multi-cpu, multi-threaded systems may push the envelope ? Solving the problem means going for a timestamp which can resolve any conceiveable CPU frequencies for all relevant future. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message