Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-WM-Posted-At:	avacado.atomice.net; Sun, 14 Apr 02 10:48:00 +0100
Message-ID:	<003101c1e399$76f51840$0100a8c0@advent02>
From:	"Chris January" <chris AT atomice DOT net>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5E35 AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
Subject:	Re: gettime time travels after suspend
Date:	Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:48:00 +0100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

> > There is a similar problem here with timeouts passd to
> > WaitForSingleObjectEx, and WaitForMultipleObjectsEx. I was
> > thinking of generating a patch that does a single retry when
> > a Wait* times out. Is the consensus that this would be useful or not?
>
> I think it depends on *where* the Wait* function is called. In various
> pthread calls for instance, we should not retry - because the timeouts
> are passed in as absolute values, not as elapsed values.
That's true, but I was thinking primarily about internal synchronisation
calls.

Hmm - I wonder why those values were made absolute though.

Chris




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -