Re: Deciding what modes to keep.

Yo Daniel! On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 20:30:49 -0400 Daniel Franke wrote: > On Sep 29, 2016 8:22 PM, "Eric S. Raymond" wrote: > > > > Gary E. Miller : > > > > But we have one mission imperative that trumps drop-in > > > > replacement:

Re: Deciding what modes to keep.

Yo Eric! On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:39:28 -0400 "Eric S. Raymond" wrote: > Gary E. Miller : > > On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:19:28 -0400 > > "Eric S. Raymond" wrote: > > > > > So, the question for our domain experts is, are there any serious > > >

Re: Deciding what modes to keep.

Gary E. Miller : > On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:19:28 -0400 > "Eric S. Raymond" wrote: > > > So, the question for our domain experts is, are there any serious use > > cases for broadcast modes? They cost a lot in configuration and > > code complexity; it would be

Re: ✘--disable-kernel-pll

Yo Daniel! On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:34:08 -0400 Daniel Franke wrote: > On Sep 29, 2016 2:23 PM, "Gary E. Miller" wrote: > > > Then maybe a worth while experimment to copy the kernel PLL into > > ntpd to see how it works there? > > I can't conceive of

TESTFRAME is dead. This accelerates us some.

I just took TESTFRAME out behind the barn and shot it. Here's the change comment: TESTFRAME: Withdraw the TESTFRAME code. There's an incompatible split between KERNEL_PLL and non-KERNEL_PLL capture logs - neither can be interpreted by the replay logic that would work for the

Re: How the KERNEL_PLL switch kills TESTFRAME

Gary E. Miller : > > Which I find strange. Preferred for portability, maybe, but > > adjtimex() is strictly more powerful. > > really? How do you get that from this text: > >ntp_adjtime () >The ntp_adjtime() library function (described in the NTP "Kernel >

Re: ✘integer overflow in expression

Yo Eric! On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 23:58:39 -0400 "Eric S. Raymond" wrote: > Gary E. Miller : > > Yo All! > > > > I'm getting a new warning on the build: > > > > [153/250] Compiling util/sht.c > > ../../util/hist.c: In function ‘main’: > > ../../util/hist.c:22:20:

Re: How the KERNEL_PLL switch kills TESTFRAME

Yo Eric! On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:07:25 -0400 "Eric S. Raymond" wrote: > Gary E. Miller : > > Yo Eric! > > > > On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 17:24:10 -0400 > > "Eric S. Raymond" wrote: > > > > > Remember, you can't even *build* the KERNEL_PLL