On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:48:57AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 02:19:24PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > Also given many other syscalls take clockids and the backing logic > > isn't really getting removed (probably could cut the dynamic posix > > clocks core with the same conditional), I wonder if you could get a > > similar size win by taking a slightly more narrow cutting of the > > subsystem. That way you could preserve the more useful clock_gettime() > > functionality, but maybe stub out some of the less often used > > functionality. > > I want to support tinification, but I also doubt the utility of > removing clock_gettime() and clock_nanosleep(). I can't imagine ever > building a user space without those. In fact, thinking about IoT, > having good time is critical, and so these are the *last* functions I > would remove when downsizing.
1) If you already have another function providing time and don't need two. 2) If you run an entirely event-driven loop and don't sleep.