Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.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" To: References: Subject: Re: gettime time travels after suspend Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:48:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/