Stefan Lucke schrieb: > On Samstag 30 September 2006 20:04, Marko Mäkelä wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 05:32:06PM +0100, Laz wrote: >>> I usually let mine turn itself on and off with nvram-wakeup! I see >>> the problem when I leave it for a short while in the middle of something >>> and get distracted! >> Me too. Sometimes, I hit the Power button followed by some other button >> to suspend the playback and to prevent the system from powering off. >> Then, I'd hit the Power button to resume. >> >>> Hmmm...if you're right about this, how long should it take to overflow? The >>> only counter I can see is a 64-bit integer which looks like it's counting >>> in >>> useconds which would take a few million years to overflow, by my reckoning! >>> Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place and it's a 32-bit counter which would >>> take 1 h 12 min to overflow. Not sure it was taking that long but it's hard >>> to tell. > > Negative values should not harm,as we would return immedeatly. > I think the problem is in cSyncTimer::GetRelTime() which returns an signed int. If GetRelTime() returns a negative number because of an overflow we will actually add that value to delay instead of substracting, when we do the ususal delay-=GetRelTime().
We could avoid this by letting GetRelTime() return some maximum, if there have been overflows. This would fix the pause problem as well as Marco's problem. Bye, Martin _______________________________________________ Softdevice-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/softdevice-devel
