Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:41:06 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: setitimer and getitimer
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.990712132938.6896B-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990713094015.25972B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> I.e. the 'ovalue->it_interval' is the same as was specified in the
> previous setitimer() call, and 'ovalue->it_value' is the remaining time
> until this timer fires. 

I made a change that makes our implementation behave this way, and will 
check it in later today.

> According to DEC, this is standardized not by POSIX, but by XPG4-UNIX. 
> That's the X/Open group definition of Unix.

That was my mistake: I thought setitimer was Posix, but it isn't.