On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 17:42 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Does that mean the return value from NtQueryTimer is unreliable?
In what way is it wrong?
I'm not sure. When I run an STC (attached), it works as expected. In
cancelable_wait(), however, it returns the negative system uptime. Is
On Aug 3 01:20, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 17:42 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Does that mean the return value from NtQueryTimer is unreliable?
In what way is it wrong?
I'm not sure. When I run an STC (attached), it works as expected. In
cancelable_wait(),
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 09:45 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 3 01:20, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 17:42 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Does that mean the return value from NtQueryTimer is unreliable?
In what way is it wrong?
I'm not sure. When I run an STC
On Aug 3 04:19, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 09:45 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 3 01:20, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 17:42 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Does that mean the return value from NtQueryTimer is unreliable?
In what way is it
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 11:27 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 3 04:19, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Never mind, I figured it out. The difference is the timeout to
WaitFor*Object*(); my STC doesn't allow the timer to finish, but
cancelable_wait() does with the INFINITE timeout. If there
On Aug 3 04:35, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 11:27 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 3 04:19, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Never mind, I figured it out. The difference is the timeout to
WaitFor*Object*(); my STC doesn't allow the timer to finish, but
Here's my second attempt at clock_nanosleep(2). After what we dealt
with in round one, this should be a piece of cake.
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/clock_nanosleep.html
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man2/clock_nanosleep.2.html
Patches for
On Aug 3 13:42, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
* cygwin.din (clock_nanosleep): Export.
* posix.sgml (std-notimpl): Move clock_nanosleep from here...
(std-susv4): ... to here.
(std-notes): Note limitations of clock_nanosleep.
* signal.cc (clock_nanosleep): Renamed from
On Aug 1 23:09, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Sun, 2011-07-31 at 10:24 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
anything new from the clock_nanosleep frontier?
Sorry, I've been having elusive problems with CVS HEAD that have been
making it hard to test my patch.
Here's what I have so far, FWIW. So
On Sun, 2011-07-31 at 10:24 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
anything new from the clock_nanosleep frontier?
Sorry, I've been having elusive problems with CVS HEAD that have been
making it hard to test my patch.
Here's what I have so far, FWIW. So far I've found two problems with
it: the
Hi Yaakov,
anything new from the clock_nanosleep frontier?
On Jul 21 13:51, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 12:37 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Given our current discussion to change cancelable_wait, does it make
sense to review this patch?
No, the cancelable_wait
On Jul 20 17:03, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 16:11 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
(*) Does it also influence pthread_cond_timedwait? This information seems
to be missing in SUSv4.
The last paragraph of RATIONALE - Timed Wait Semantics states:
For cases when the
On Jul 20 21:22, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 17:03 -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 16:11 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
The only problem I see is the fact that a call to clock_settime
influences calls to clock_nanosleep with absolute timeouts(*).
On Jul 21 11:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jul 20 21:22, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Looking at the other uses of cancelable_wait(), would the following make
sense:
* change the timeout argument to struct timespec *;
* cancelable_wait (object, INFINITE) calls change to (object, NULL);
On Jul 19 20:54, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
This patchset implements the POSIX clock_nanosleep(2) function:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/clock_nanosleep.html
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man2/clock_nanosleep.2.html
In summary,
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 12:37 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Given our current discussion to change cancelable_wait, does it make
sense to review this patch?
No, the cancelable_wait changes need to go first.
AFAICs the clock_nanosleep function will have to be changes quite a bit,
right?
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 11:35 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jul 21 11:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
No, you're not at all off-base. Personally I'd prefer to use the native
NT timer functions, but that's not important.
No problem, that's something I keep forgetting about.
What I'm missing
On Jul 21 13:51, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 12:37 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Something else occured to me, but I think we should do this in an extra
step, if at all. IMO the family of sleep functions should be moved out
of signal.cc into times.cc. It just seems to
On Jul 21 13:59, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 11:35 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jul 21 11:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
No, you're not at all off-base. Personally I'd prefer to use the native
NT timer functions, but that's not important.
No problem, that's
On Jul 21 21:09, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jul 21 13:59, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 11:35 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jul 21 11:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
No, you're not at all off-base. Personally I'd prefer to use the native
NT timer functions, but
Hi Yaakov,
On Jul 19 20:54, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
This patchset implements the POSIX clock_nanosleep(2) function:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/clock_nanosleep.html
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man2/clock_nanosleep.2.html
In summary,
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 09:56 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
This doesn't look right. In contrast to nanosleep, clock_nanosleep
is not subsumed under the _POSIX_TIMERS option. In fact it's the only
function under the _POSIX_CLOCK_SELECTION option.
I did some searching, and there are actually
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 04:16 -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 09:56 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
This doesn't look right. In contrast to nanosleep, clock_nanosleep
is not subsumed under the _POSIX_TIMERS option. In fact it's the only
function under the
On Jul 20 04:50, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 04:16 -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 09:56 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
This doesn't look right. In contrast to nanosleep, clock_nanosleep
is not subsumed under the _POSIX_TIMERS option. In fact
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 09:56:54AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
I haven't much time right now. If cgf doesn't beat me to it, I'll
review the function later.
I have a couple of PriA problems to look into at work so I don't have
much time either.
cgf
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 16:11 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jul 20 04:50, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Actually, no need to panic, I took a closer look at this, and it's not
all that hard at all, so I'll go ahead and implement
pthread_condattr_[gs]etclock() as well. Just give me a day or two
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 17:03 -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 16:11 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
The only problem I see is the fact that a call to clock_settime
influences calls to clock_nanosleep with absolute timeouts(*).
However, clock_settime() can set only
This patchset implements the POSIX clock_nanosleep(2) function:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/clock_nanosleep.html
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man2/clock_nanosleep.2.html
In summary, clock_nanosleep(2) replaces nanosleep(2) as the primary
sleeping
28 matches
Mail list logo
