Message 110112 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	belopolsky
Recipients	belopolsky, mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger, tim.peters
Date	2010-07-12.17:01:14
SpamBayes Score	0.0016036391
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<[email protected]>
In-reply-to	<[email protected]>

Content
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> wrote: .. > Instead of being defined in _time.h, perhaps the new API function should be provided by core Python? This is an interesting idea, but proposed Py_gettimeofday inherits float_time logic of falling back on ftime and then plain time in case gettimeofday is not available. I am not sure this behavior is always beneficial. I notice that Python/ceval_gil.h has a comment /* We assume all modern POSIX systems have gettimeofday() */, which means it handles windows completely differently and using Py_gettimeofday instead of GETTIMEOFDAY in gil code may not be appropriate.

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> wrote:
..
> Instead of being defined in _time.h, perhaps the new API function should be provided by core Python?

This is an interesting idea, but proposed Py_gettimeofday inherits
float_time logic of falling back on ftime and then plain time in case
gettimeofday is not available.  I am not sure this behavior is always
beneficial.  I notice that Python/ceval_gil.h has a comment /* We
assume all modern POSIX systems have gettimeofday() */, which means it
handles windows completely differently and using   Py_gettimeofday
instead of GETTIMEOFDAY in gil code may not be appropriate.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2010-07-12 17:01:20	belopolsky	set	recipients: + belopolsky, tim.peters, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, pitrou
2010-07-12 17:01:14	belopolsky	link	issue9079 messages
2010-07-12 17:01:14	belopolsky	create