> > I really don't get the cruscade agains gettimeofday(). Despite what > > POSIX may say, it is not going away. And what you're proposing isn't > > really an optimization. As far as I'm concerned this is just > > (unwanted) churn. > > I don't think there's a crusade here; time(3) gives us shorter code in > auth_unix.c, and still uses gettimeofday(2) under the hood. The two > other diffs are dead code removal. I think it's worth it, ok jca@
time(3) is not actually shorter code. It is a deeper function call; it is running more instructions. At runtime it isn't shorter code, and the visible aspect is irrelevant since I have to hunt for the sub-second initialization. Since timespecs also use tv_* prefixes, a hint about the other sub-second field is being lost, also, sometimes the clearing of the sub-second field isn't in the same place it is missing. To my mind it is strange because around 20 years ago I audited the tree and used time() calls to spot ancient code or inaccurate range handling, and changed many to gettimeofday(). Now they'll get changed back? So no... I don't like these changes to time().
