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 Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 12:04:49 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] gettimeofday time travels Message-ID: <20020509160449.GF6910@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <15547.16136.163472.840007@bea.com> <20020415214133.GA19612@redhat.com> <15577.12319.622365.566799@bea.com> <20020508144104.GA1093@redhat.com> <15578.30482.568575.767214@bea.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15578.30482.568575.767214@bea.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 02:18:10PM +0100, Philip Aston wrote: >I the decision is now a question of efficiency. My approach is >simpler, and it means we don't have to call both >QueryPerformanceCounter and GetSystemTime every time. It also means we >don't have to do arithmetic to get the result of GetSystemTime in some >form in which it can be compared to our QueryPerformanceCounter >calculation. > >I can't see any other reason to pick ChrisJ's method over mine? > >Thoughts anyone...? An NT only solution is not a solution. Syncing every "x" seconds also is not a solution. The correct solution is to resync after events which cause the clock to stop. cgf -- 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/