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: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:37:57 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Missed patch? (gettimeofday time travels V2) Message-ID: <20030114203757.GA6145@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <000001c2bb91$824a13a0$0100a8c0@asswipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000001c2bb91$824a13a0$0100a8c0@asswipe> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 09:55:15PM -0800, Fish wrote: > >Is there any reason why Philip Aston's 6 Jul 2002 patch to >gettimeofday et. al. logic to correct for WM_POWERBROADCAST events >(PBT_APMRESUMESUSPEND, PBT_APMRESUMEAUTOMATIC, PBT_APMRESUMECRITICAL) >hasn't made it into the sources yet? > >http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2002-05/msg00962.html > >Was this perhaps just a simple oversight? Or was there another reason >for it not being applied? Perhaps it would be instructive if you read the whole thread. 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/