Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-owner@sourceware.cygnus.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com From: Chris Faylor Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 11:59:59 -0400 To: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Cc: Mumit Khan Subject: Re: B20.1: ftime bug Message-ID: <19990511115959.B821@cygnus.com> References: <001b01be9b23$b5bb3c60$227196c0@dodo.seaspace.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i In-Reply-To: ; from Mumit Khan on Mon, May 10, 1999 at 04:16:24PM -0500 On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 04:16:24PM -0500, Mumit Khan wrote: >On Mon, 10 May 1999, Scott Herndon wrote: >> ftime() is filling the time member of its argument with something other than >> the number of seconds since the epoch. >> >> time() returns a number close to 926367193 (which seems right) while the >> time member that ftime() populates is filled with a number like 2949164. >> gettimeofday() seems to return the same (wrong) value that ftime() does. > >gettimeofday and anything else that uses the same backend, eg., ftime, is >broken in b20.1. Search the mailing list for more info. Good news is that >it's fixed in recent snapshots, and so you can expect it fixed in b21. > >Interestingly enough, I see a 20 second or so lag in Cygwin's time than in >the native time. Wonder if it's just due to the time taken to process the >data and so on. Yow! I hope it isn't that slow. Btw, someone just submitted a patch for dealing with daylight savings time. I haven't had a chance t evaluate it yet. I've heard conflicting reports as to whether there is actually a problem or not. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com