Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!lll-winken!uunet!longway!std-unix
From: uunet!mcgrath@paris.Berkeley.EDU (Roland McGrath)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: CLK_TCK vs. CLOCKS_PER_SEC
Message-ID: <324@longway.TIC.COM>
Date: 23 Mar 89 03:01:08 GMT
References: <320@longway.TIC.COM> <321@longway.TIC.COM>
Sender: std-unix@longway.TIC.COM
Reply-To: mcgrath%paris.Berkeley.EDU (Roland McGrath)
Organization: Hackers Anonymous International, Ltd., Inc. (Applications welcome)
Lines: 18
Approved: jsq@longway.tic.com (Moderator, John S. Quarterman)

From: uunet!mcgrath@paris.Berkeley.EDU (Roland McGrath)

["CLK_TCK vs. CLOCKS_PER_SEC"] - uunet!hpfcdc.HP.COM!hp-sdd!donn (Donn Terry):
) For now: sysconf() will always give the "right" answer for CLK_TCK, so
) use that. 

Well, I'm trying to *implement* it in my C library, so can you tell us
what "unapproved in any way" but changes have been made to the standards?

Thanks,
Roland McGrath <roland@wheaties.ai.mit.edu>
Free Software Foundation

	Roland McGrath
	Free Software Foundation, Inc.
roland@wheaties.ai.mit.edu, mit-eddie!wheaties.ai.mit.edu!roland

Volume-Number: Volume 16, Number 23