This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: LoadLibrary error 487 (was Re: Please test latest developer snapshot)
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 21:42:38 +0100
- Subject: Re: LoadLibrary error 487 (was Re: Please test latest developer snapshot)
- References: <20110228005736.GA31571@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20110228100146.GD413@calimero.vinschen.de> <20110228194957.GA29573@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20110228201533.GC25554@calimero.vinschen.de> <20110228202021.GD25554@calimero.vinschen.de> <20110228215906.GB11525@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20110228221010.GA22240@calimero.vinschen.de> <20110301091102.GB22240@calimero.vinschen.de> <20110301145821.GC21730@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20110301175300.GD22240@calimero.vinschen.de>
- Reply-to: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
On Mar 1 18:53, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar 1 09:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 10:11:02AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >On Feb 28 23:10, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >> On Feb 28 16:59, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > >> > I have something like that sitting in my sandbox but I named the flag
> > >> > "use_dont_resolve_hack". Actually "need_dont_resolve_hack" would
> > >> > probably be better.
> > >> >
> > >> > But, at this point, it's nickel and dime so whatever you want to
> > >> > call it is fine.
> > >>
> > >> "use_dont_resolve_hack" is fine with me. If you check it in tonight,
> > >> I'll create 1.7.8 from there tomorrow morning.
> > >
> > >Talking about 1.7.9, is there perhaps a way to get rid of the multimedia
> > >timer in times.cc? This would restrict the usage of winmm to /dev/dsp.
> > >Dumb question: Can't we just use the 64 bit uptime counter from the
> > >KUSER_SHARED_DATA area?
> > No, there really isn't. This has already been discussed and rediscussed over
> > the years.
> My brain is a bit fuzzy in terms of remembering this stuff. Did we ever
> discussed to use a waitable timer? This only requires ntdll functions.
> I think this is how winmm implements timeGetTime.
> I made a quick test and the returned values look pretty good in
> terms of stability. 15.625 ms on XP vs. 15.6 ms on W7 without any
> weird jitter.
Or we implement timeGetTime ourselves. Since we don't need the actual
value (msecs since system startup), we can simply use the core code of
the function. In C it would look like this:
t.HighPart = SharedUserData.InterruptTime.High1Time;
t.LowPart = SharedUserData.InterruptTime.LowPart;
while (t.HighPart != SharedUserData.InterruptTime.High2Time);
t.QuadPart /= 10000;
The rest of the (very short) timeGetTime function just subtracts and
adds some constant values to t before returning its LowPart.
timeEndPeriod and timeBeginPeriod could be replaced with calls to
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com