On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:48 AM, ykzhao <yakui.z...@intel.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 17:02 +0800, Mikhail Gusarov wrote: >> Twas brillig at 16:45:34 24.08.2010 UTC+08 when yakui.z...@intel.com did >> gyre and gimble: >> >> y> What side effect will it bring if we define it explicitly and use it >> y> when it is not defined in system header? >> >> Bad side-effect is X.org becoming OS again :) It isn't hard to require >> newer linux-libc-dev headers for CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE definition. > > How about limiting it to linux platform as mentioned by Samuel > Thibault? > > The change of this patch happens in the file of os/utils.c, which has > the dependency on the OS. Not sure whether it will be too strict that > the glibc header file needs to be updated in order to use the > CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE posix timer. > > Now some latest linux distribution already adds the definition of > CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE. But on the previous distribution, the user still > can enjoy the benefit of using CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE posix timer after > updating the linux kernel while the gcc tool doesn't need to be updated. >
That use case is very unlikely to happen excluding developers. Nearly everyone else will be using this patch in system with new enough headers that do define CLOCK_MONOTIC_COARSE. > Thanks. > yakui >> > > _______________________________________________ > xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel