On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:27:52PM -0700, Ryan O’Hara wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM, FRIGN wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:47:27 +0200
> > "Roberto E. Vargas Caballero" wrote:
> >
> >> I agree with you and I like the patch. If nobody have problems with
> >> it I will apply it.
> >
>
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM, FRIGN wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:47:27 +0200
> "Roberto E. Vargas Caballero" wrote:
>
>> I agree with you and I like the patch. If nobody have problems with
>> it I will apply it.
>
> Cool! :)
>
> Yeah, it's the first step on refactoring the main loop. I see
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:47:27 +0200
"Roberto E. Vargas Caballero" wrote:
> I agree with you and I like the patch. If nobody have problems with
> it I will apply it.
Cool! :)
Yeah, it's the first step on refactoring the main loop. I see some
potential.
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN
> This is not good practice[0], given gettimeofday is inaccurate for this
> matter (take time-jumps for instance). POSIX.1-2008 even marks it as
> obsolete!
I agree with you and I like the patch. If nobody have problems with
it I will apply it.
Regards,
--
Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
Hello everybody,
reading run(), I noticed gettimeofday() is being used to measure
time-differences.
This is not good practice[0], given gettimeofday is inaccurate for this
matter (take time-jumps for instance). POSIX.1-2008 even marks it as
obsolete!
This patch will move the entire timing-system o
