From: dbe AT wgn DOT net ($Bill Luebkert) Subject: Re: using times() 22 Sep 1997 21:26:46 -0700 Message-ID: <342740C0.30FD.cygnus.gnu-win32@wgn.net> References: <199709221156 DOT NAA74986 AT sp060 DOT cern DOT ch> Reply-To: dbe AT wgn DOT net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: fine AT mail DOT cern DOT ch Cc: Sergey Okhapkin , gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Valery Fine wrote: > > On 22 Sep 97 at 14:15, Sergey Okhapkin wrote: > > > Valery Fine wrote: > > > On 22 Sep 97 at 8:33, Sergey Okhapkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > times() call works on NT only. The underlying syscall > > > > GetProcessTimes() unimplemented on windows 95. The output of your > > > > examle looks the following on my box (NT4.0 SP3): > > > > > > Probably like this would be better then just ZERO: > > > > > > > I'm not sure. Probably, it's better to return -1 and to set errno to > > ENOSYS, rather than return incorrect value. > > It would be as correct as the user's OS (namely Win95) provides > Since calling that API user wants (I guess) to estimate the time > ======== > and this incorrect value may help him but ENOSYS ? > > Anyway it can not be absolutely precise value for any system. There > is some error anyway. This error will be large for Win95. For this > case the > > "REAL exact value" <= "supplied" > > and it will be not far from the real one if the user's system is > running a single process. > > Is it wrong ? I would say yes, you are wrong. Sergey pointed out that the function is not implemented on Win95. Returning any value other than error would be a mistake in my opinion. I agree with Sergey's response and -1 should be returned on Win95 until it's possible to actually implement the feature. -- ,-/- __ _ _ $Bill Luebkert (_/ / ) // // DBE Collectibles / ) /--< o // // http://www.wgn.net/~dbe/ -/-' /___/_<_