This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Cygwin with clock_gettime and CLOCK_MONOTONIC - gives always 0
- From: "N.M. Maclaren" <nmm1 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 11 Apr 2013 23:23:42 +0100
- Subject: Re: Cygwin with clock_gettime and CLOCK_MONOTONIC - gives always 0
- References: <5166A0B3 dot 70801 at net-b dot de> <5166BCA1 dot 5040204 at net-b dot de> <20130411134835 dot GD18333 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <51670B6B dot 3000503 at net-b dot de> <20130411195200 dot GJ18333 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <51671EAA dot 8030901 at net-b dot de> <20130411213934 dot GA30487 at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
On Apr 11 2013, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:35:54PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
* gfortran's example for random_see should be change to not use
system_clock for the random seed.
I disagree. The example is just that a short example
that demonstrates how to use random_seed. Anyone using
that example in his/her code without testing the results
in his/her potentially broken environment should not be
programming.
That is unfair. Few scientists will know that system clocks are
an iffy aspect of a programming language, especially as there are
no fundamental reasons that should be the case. People who have
been around for a while will know that, and I can witness that
they have been made a complete mess of since the 1960s, quite
often preserving the defects of ancient designs in new designs
that have no functional aspect in common. But why on earth
should any sane person expect that?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple