No. I get non-zero milli- and microseconds in my time stamps now, but (counting after the decimal point) digits 7 through 9 of a %.9f seconds value are always zero.
- Andrew
--
Complicity is easy, Simplexity takes real work
> On Aug 3, 2020, at 6:54 PM, Michael Davidsaver <mdavidsaver at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/3/20 4:02 PM, Johnson, Andrew N. via Core-talk wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 2020, at 4:36 PM, APS Jenkins via Core-talk <core-talk at aps.anl.gov <mailto:core-talk at aps.anl.gov>> wrote:
>>>
>>> See <https://jenkins.aps.anl.gov/job/epics-7.0/OS=mac/245/display/redirect?page=changes>
>>
>> So the change I committed earlier to Darwin's osdTimeGetCurrent() speeds it up significantly, but apparently at the expense of not giving nanosecond precision any more – I guess that’s probably not terribly surprising.
>
>> All my wall-clock timestamps now have 000 in the nanoseconds part,
>
> Do I read this correctly? Effective time resolution would be limited to 1 second on Mac?
>
>
>> although the monotonic clock isn’t affected as it uses a different kernel API.
>>
>> The failures in the above Jenkins Mac build were these:
>>
>>> simmTest.tap ..............
>>> not ok 136 - time stamp is recent
>>> not ok 311 - time stamp is recent
>>> not ok 435 - time stamp is recent
>>> not ok 803 - time stamp is recent
>>> not ok 996 - time stamp is recent
>>> not ok 1171 - time stamp is recent
>>> Failed 6/1176 subtests
>>> (42 TODO tests unexpectedly succeeded)
>>
>> The problem is that in several places the test code is doing this:
>>
>>> testOk(epicsTimeLessThan(&now, mytime), "time stamp is recent");
>>
>> which fails when now and *mytime are identical. I am changing that code to:
>>
>>> double diff = epicsTimeDiffInSeconds(mytime, &now);
>>> testOk(diff >= 0.0, "time stamp is recent (%.9f sec)", diff);
>>
>> Equality is now always allowed, and we get to see how different the timestamps actually are.
>>
>> One of these (but not all) is inside a testTodoBegin("imprecise"); region.
>>
>> - Andrew
>>
>> --
>> Complexity comes for free, simplicity you have to work for.
>>
>
- Replies:
- Re: Jenkins test failures on macOS Michael Davidsaver via Core-talk
- References:
- Jenkins build became unstable: epics-7.0 » mac #245 APS Jenkins via Core-talk
- Jenkins test failures on macOS Johnson, Andrew N. via Core-talk
- Re: Jenkins test failures on macOS Michael Davidsaver via Core-talk
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Jenkins build is back to stable : epics-7.0 » linux32 #246 APS Jenkins via Core-talk
- Next:
Re: Jenkins test failures on macOS Michael Davidsaver via Core-talk
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
<2020>
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: Jenkins test failures on macOS Michael Davidsaver via Core-talk
- Next:
Re: Jenkins test failures on macOS Michael Davidsaver via Core-talk
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
<2020>
2021
2022
2023
2024
|