Oct. 8, 1998
12:14 p.m.
In message <199810052044.NAA14428@shade.twinsun.com>, Paul Eggert <eggert@twinsun.com> writes
Perhaps I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly; still, I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that the C standard should impose an upper limit on the quality of the clock.
It shouldn't. However, that doesn't mean that it can't put a limit on Standard access to the clock. Thus a design that limited defined precision to 1ns, but didn't forbid an fs or as field would be reasonable. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Regulation Officer, LINX | Work: <clive@linx.org> Tel: +44 1733 705000 | (on secondment from | Home: <cdwf@i.am> Fax: +44 1733 353929 | Demon Internet) | <http://i.am/davros> Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address