[uClibc]Re: CLK_TCK fair well messed up

[Miles Bader]

mjn3 at codepoet.org (Manuel Novoa III) writes:
> In an effort to minimize codesize, I implemented clock() to deal with the
> currently possible values of CLK_TCK and left an #error test in to flag a
> problem if the situation changes.  In fact, I think it is better to leave
> the #error test in place for unsupported values, rather than attempt to do 
> a canned solution that might introduce more integer arithemtic error
> than necessary.

In what cases is the code gcc produces for the `simple' calculation
(ticks * (CLOCKS_PER_SEC / CLK_TCK)) unreasonable?  [sorry, I'd like to
check the existing special case code so that I can ask a more informed
question, but the fileserver where my uclibc source is stored is
currently down!]

It seems kind of silly to require that all possible CLK_TCK values be
explicitly listed in the code.

-Miles
-- 
.Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.