Wed Aug 3 09:20:00 GMT 2011
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 (attached), it works as expected. In
> > cancelable_wait(), however, it returns the negative system uptime. Is
> > Cygwin doing something to make this occur?
> That sounds weird. How should Cygwin influence what an independent OS
> function returns? And you sure it's the system uptime? Wow.
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 is time
remaining, as in the STC, then TIMER_BASIC_INFORMATION.TimeRemaining
contains just that (as a positive). If the timer has signalled, then
instead of zero, it appears to provide when it was signalled (system
uptime, as a negative).
With that figured out, here's a revised patch. Once this is in, then
adding clock_nanosleep() should be relatively easy.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 22181 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Cygwin-patches