https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/742

Em 06/11/2013 11:14, Pieter Hintjens escreveu:
Felipe,

If you want to, please make a pull request with the change.

Thanks
Pieter


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Felipe Farinon <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    So, is there any interest in fixing this?


    -------- Mensagem original --------
    Assunto:    Re: [zeromq-dev] zmq_poll stops expiring timeout in
    virtualized Windows 7
    Data:       Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:19:08 -0200
    De:         Felipe Farinon <[email protected]>
    <mailto:[email protected]>
    Responder a:        ZeroMQ development list
    <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
    Para:       [email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>



    We can make our own GetTickCount64 built around GetTickCount and
    call it when GetTickCount64 is not available in Kernel32.dll. This
    code supports Windows 2000 or greater, whereas calling
    GetTickCount64 directly from Kernel32.dll supports only Vista or
    greater.

    static DWORD s_wrap = 0;
    static DWORD s_lastTick = 0;
    static std::mutex s_wrapMutex;

    ULONGLONG MyGetTickCount64()
    {
        std::unique_lock<std::mutex>_(wrapMutex);
        DWORD currentTick = ::GetTickCount();
        if (currentTick < s_lastTick)
            ++s_wrap;

        s_lastTick = currentTick;
        return (static_cast<ULONGLONG>(s_wrap) << 32) + currentTick;
    }


    Em 24/10/2013 16:19, Felipe Farinon escreveu:
    Unfortunately, GetTickCount64 is only supported on Windows Vista
    or greater.

    Em 21/10/2013 16:47, Felipe Farinon escreveu:
    GetTickCount64 would solve these problems, since it returns the
    numbers of millisenconds since the machine has started.

    Em 16/10/2013 12:47, Steven McCoy escreveu:
    On 16 October 2013 10:25, Laurent Alebarde <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

        A simplier approach is to encapsulate the standard clock of
        your choice and save in a static member the value of the
        last get. Then if the standard clock goes back in time, you
        return the saved value + 1.


    For clock drift this is fine, one doesn't even have to bother
    with the increment for many cases.  However there can be major
    problems with NTP, daylight savings, and suspend/hibernation
    states.

-- Steve-o


    _______________________________________________
    zeromq-dev mailing list
    [email protected]  <mailto:[email protected]>
    http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev



    _______________________________________________
    zeromq-dev mailing list
    [email protected]  <mailto:[email protected]>
    http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev



    _______________________________________________
    zeromq-dev mailing list
    [email protected]  <mailto:[email protected]>
    http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev




    _______________________________________________
    zeromq-dev mailing list
    [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev




--
-
Pieter Hintjens
CEO of iMatix.com
Founder of ZeroMQ community
blog: http://hintjens.com


_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

Reply via email to