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
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/