Remove profiling clock failure setting and handling

[eregon]

These helpers read fixed system clocks supported on the target platforms: CLOCK_REALTIME, CLOCK_MONOTONIC and CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE on Linux, and CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW and CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW_APPROX on macOS. They always pass a valid stack-allocated timespec to clock_gettime(), so invalid clock IDs and invalid output pointers cannot occur here. Unlike per-thread CPU clocks, these clocks cannot disappear when a thread exits, making failure handling unnecessary for these helpers.

Remove raise_on_failure_setting and its arguments from all callers, along with the zero-result checks and deferred ClockFailure exception machinery. Keep per-thread CPU clock error handling unchanged.

What does this PR do?

Motivation:

Simplicity, keeping it simple, clean.

Change log entry

Additional Notes:

How to test the change?

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-08T15:35:58.798554Z	03646c5	Manual request
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-08T15:37:30.628207Z	03646c5	Manual request

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 783cc1fd52

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[eregon]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Chef's kiss.

Reviewed commit: 03646c5548

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggered

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 03646c5548

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

• You comment "@codex security review"
• A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

[datadog-prod-us1-6]

✅ All CI checks and tests passed.

🎉 All green!

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 90.85% (+0.01%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: aeecbf2 | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-10-09 12:01:01

Comparing candidate commit aeecbf2 in PR branch profiling/remove-clock-failure-setting with baseline commit ac74293 in branch master.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 52 metrics, 0 unstable metrics.

Explanation

This is an A/B test comparing a candidate commit's performance against that of a baseline commit. Performance changes are noted in the tables below as:

• 🟩 = significantly better candidate vs. baseline
• 🟥 = significantly worse candidate vs. baseline

We compute a confidence interval (CI) over the relative difference of means between metrics from the candidate and baseline commits, considering the baseline as the reference.

If the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD), the change is considered significant.

Feel free to reach out to #apm-benchmarking-platform on Slack if you have any questions.

More details about the CI and significant changes

You can imagine this CI as a range of values that is likely to contain the true difference of means between the candidate and baseline commits.

CIs of the difference of means are often centered around 0%, because often changes are not that big:

---------------------------------(------|---^--------)-------------------------------->
                              -0.6%    0%  0.3%     +1.2%
                                 |          |        |
         lower bound of the CI --'          |        |
sample mean (center of the CI) -------------'        |
         upper bound of the CI ----------------------'

As described above, a change is considered significant if the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD).

For instance, for an execution time metric, this confidence interval indicates a significantly worse performance:

----------------------------------------|---------|---(---------^---------)---------->
                                       0%        1%  1.3%      2.2%      3.1%
                                                  |   |         |         |
       significant impact threshold --------------'   |         |         |
                      lower bound of CI --------------'         |         |
       sample mean (center of the CI) --------------------------'         |
                      upper bound of CI ----------------------------------'

[ivoanjo]

👍 LGTM Looks amazing, thanks for digging on this one!

It was so annoying to go all the time "uuuhhh time can fail here, how can we handle it, we're kinda in the middle of something".

I had AI friend do a "just in case" pass on linux/glibc/musl sources and it confirmed our expectations -- other than 32-bit or weird configurations (seccomp blocking time syscall) we're good!