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
