Patch will be added.
Created attachment 100618 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 100618 [details] Patch Did you test this functions ?
(In reply to comment #2) > (From update of attachment 100618 [details]) > Did you test this functions ? I tested gettimeofday version and ecore_time_unix_get. They return almost same value. (little bit different because time elapsed after calling one and other). In case of ecore_time_get, you can reference below document. http://docs.enlightenment.org/auto/ecore/group__Ecore__Time__Group.html#ga43846b079394bb4d098abf5c16dfc544 Because ecore_time_get use monotonic clock, it cover functionality of monotonicallyIncreasingTime.
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > (From update of attachment 100618 [details] [details]) > > Did you test this functions ? > > I tested gettimeofday version and ecore_time_unix_get. > They return almost same value. > (little bit different because time elapsed after calling one and other). > > In case of ecore_time_get, you can reference below document. > http://docs.enlightenment.org/auto/ecore/group__Ecore__Time__Group.html#ga43846b079394bb4d098abf5c16dfc544 > > Because ecore_time_get use monotonic clock, it cover functionality of monotonicallyIncreasingTime. Implementation of ecore_time_unix_get() uses gettimeofday as well. So, it looks there is no problem.
LGTM.
Comment on attachment 100618 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 100618 Committed r91660: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/91660>
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.