cgf writes: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 09:58:48PM +0100, Philip Aston wrote: > >How about the attached quick and dirty fix? > > I'm sorry but I don't think a quick and dirty fix is justified if > there are other alternatives. I haven't seen any other alternatives > discussed yet.
Understood and appreciated. Here's some justificiation/discussion for my fix. I'm no W32 expert but: 1. Suspend and resume changes the counters in a seemingly unpredictable way. (I'd have guessed that the counters would have been "suspended" and hence the reported time after a suspend would be in the past). I wouldn't want to patch into suspend notification API's to implement this. 2. There are other situations in which the base time could be invalidated (NTP update, timezone change, user clock change). How can/should we detect and react to these events? 3. There is a chance that QueryPerformance* _should_ take suspend/resume into account and that my hardware is at fault. Any volunteers to run my test case on their machines? - Phil -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
