Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Wed, 30 Aug 2000 18:39:52 -0400
Message-Id:	<200008302239.SAA13503@envy.delorie.com>
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	joe DOT konczal AT nist DOT gov
CC:	cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
In-reply-to:	<200008302128.RAA13218@zingy.ncsl.nist.gov> (message from Joe
	Konczal on Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:28:58 -0400 (EDT))
Subject:	Re: gettimeofday is 1000 us slow
References:	<200008302128 DOT RAA13218 AT zingy DOT ncsl DOT nist DOT gov>

> In cygwin-1.1.1/winsup/cygwin/times.cc, line 180, s.wMilliseconds is
> set to 1, but it should be zero.

Fixed.

> The correct value for factor is 0x19db1ded53e8000LL, not
> 0x19db1ded53ea710LL.

Fixed.

> In line 175, the correct value for s.wDayOfWeek is 4, not 5,

Fixed, but you're right about it being ignored.

> If the time is obtained directly as a FILETIME with
> GetSystemTimeAsFileTime(), then Windows 2000 gives you fractions of
> milliseconds, although I have not verified their accuracy.

Changed.  NT's internal system time resolution is only a millisecond
anyway, documentation notwithstanding.  If anyone has evidence to the
contrary for W2K, I'd be interested in hearing it.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -