>As far as I'm concerned, it doens't prove anything, because the
>hardware was not identical.  I don't particularly care that the
>hardware in machine A is "slower".

That's your prerogative.  dont be surprised if the rest of
the world thinks it does show something.

But if you _really_ want to do a head-to-head comparison, perhaps the
most convicing way is to stop crapping all over non-PPS support and
actually get PPS support in the NetBSD kernel.
Then we could *do* the head-to-head test, very simply:
just run NTP on the machine on top of both FreeBSD and NetBSD.

Does that really have to be spelled out explicitly?
I thought you were brighter than that.

As it is, I was hoping Charles would be kind enough to take a look at
the one line in the com.c patch which I'm not sure about:


>                       SET(sc->sc_msr_delta, delta);
> + 
> +                     if (sc->sc_dcd_timestamping && ISSET(delta, MSR_DCD)) {
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> +                             microtime(&sc->sc_dcd_timestamp);
> +                     }
>   


That line is just a guess.  The rest turns out to be almost identical
to the FreeBSD driver.

If Charles would turn down his ego problem long enough to actully
listen and learn something, instead of flaming from the hip at a
``PPS'' change that wasn't a PPS change at all and
wasn't even mine, we might even have working PPS code by now.

I'm positive Charles would know if that was correct or not, and
if not, could fix it on sight. He's far more expert here than I am--
as I said all along. Anyone who cares can go back a week  and see.