This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR 56919 SYSTEM_CLOCK on Windows


On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de> wrote:
> Janne Blomqvist wrote:
>>
>> Attached is an updated patch which uses GetTickCount for system_clock_4;
>> this should be fine as system_clock_4 wraps around in ~25 days anyways. For
>> system_clock_8 it uses QueryPerformance{Counter,Frequency}.
>
>
>> The patch also adds an additional check for _POSIX_MONOTONIC_CLOCK.
>> Ok for trunk?
>
>
> Regarding the documentation, I wonder whether one should do the following
> additional changes:
> - Explicitly suggest to use a kind=8 argument fÃr system_clock (for higher
> resolution and to avoid overflows).
> - To change the system_clock example to use an integer(8) argument.
> Possibly, via iso_fortran_env's int64 or via selected_int_kind(18)
>
>
> + #if defined(CLOCK_MONOTONIC) && defined(_POSIX_MONOTONIC_CLOCK)
>
> I'd add
>   && _POSIX_MONOTONIC_CLOCK >= 0
> as POSIX states: "If a symbolic constant is defined with the value -1, the
> option is not supported."
>
>
> +      uint32_t cnt = GetTickCount ();
>
> I wonder whether a comment stating that GetTickCount instead of
> QueryPerformanceCounter is used as the extra precision and 49.7-days
> overflow do not matter with the 32bit system_clock - and as
> QueryPerformanceCounter has issues on some (very few) systems.
>
>
> Otherwise, it looks fine to me.

I committed the attached patch with most of your suggestions as r197968.

Thanks for the review.



--
Janne Blomqvist

Attachment: sysclockwin.3.diff
Description: Binary data


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]