On Wed, Dec 27 2017, "Theo de Raadt" <dera...@openbsd.org> wrote: >> > Since timespecs also use tv_* prefixes, a hint about the other sub-second >> > field is being lost, also, sometimes the clearing of the sub-second field >> > isn't in the same place it is missing. >> >> What do you have in mind when you say "sub-second initialization"? The >> idea is to use time(3) when all you need is *seconds*. > > These pieces of code use struct timeval or struct timespec. > > Both fields should be initialized. Otherwise someone may use > unintialized data in future revamp of the code. > > Using gettimeofday() avoids that problem. Using time() to manually set > the tv_sec field without the other field is a red flag. It makes me > hunt for the place where the sub-second field is set to 0. > > Using time() isn't solving a problem without introducing a new one. > gettimeofday() is the right function for managing struct timeval and > ensuring the structure is fully managed. I don't understand why you > don't realize time.c properly initialized a struct timeval, then the > proper initialization is thrown away, requiring a manual initialization? > > WHY.
Look at the three diffs (two have been committed) that replaced gettimeofday(2) with time(3), all of them also removed the struct timeval involved, because only a time_t is useful. So there is no tv_usec field left to initialize, and less things to care about. -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
