X-Authentication-Warning:	acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de: broeker owned process doing -bs
Date:	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:40:28 +0200 (MET DST)
From:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
X-Sender:	broeker AT acp3bf
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: setitimer and getitimer
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990712134715.4966B-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.3.93.990712132938.6896B-100000@acp3bf>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> It seems that our implementation gets wrong the value returned by 
> getitimer and setitimer (the latter in the ovalue argument).  We
> return the *remaining* time until the timer expires, whereas the
> Unix semantics seems to be to return the *original* timer value
> passed to setitimer last time it was called.

I just looked it up on a Digital Unix Alpha box --- DEC is excellent
at writing manpages, IMHO. To quote:

  ovalue    Points to an itimerval structure whose members specify a 
            current timer interval and the time left to the end of the
            interval. 

I.e. the 'ovalue->it_interval' is the same as was specified in the
previous setitimer() call, and 'ovalue->it_value' is the remaining time
until this timer fires. 

According to DEC, this is standardized not by POSIX, but by XPG4-UNIX. 
That's the X/Open group definition of Unix.

Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

- Raw text -