Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
X-Authentication-Warning: modi.xraylith.wisc.edu: khan owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 16:16:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu>
To: Scott Herndon <scotth AT seaspace DOT com>
cc: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: B20.1: ftime bug
In-Reply-To: <001b01be9b23$b5bb3c60$227196c0@dodo.seaspace.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.93.990510161330.14165L-100000@modi.xraylith.wisc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

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.

Regards,
Mumit



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com