Re: [Quickfix-developers] process_sleep has unitialized pointer

[Oren M. <or...@qu...>]

Yeah, but I think it should be, time.tv_nsec = (long) ((modf(s, 
&intpart) * 1e9);, as a nanosecond is a billionth of a second.

--oren

On Jun 22, 2004, at 3:33 AM, Joerg Thoennes wrote:

> Oren Miller wrote:
>> Actually, if we aren't making use of that parameter, we can just use 
>> NULL. The only time that the structure is written out if a signal has 
>> been delivered to the process, thus interrupting the call and 
>> allowing us to continue with the remainder. I don't think this is a 
>> situation we need to really concern ourselves with, and it certainly 
>> isn't handling this case right now.
>
> I would suggest to do it right now. nanosleep() is the POSIX compliant 
> way to wait and it is designed to make restarts after a signal easy:
>
> 	while( -1 == nanosleep( &time_to_sleep, &remainder ) ) {
> 		time_to_sleep = remainder;
>         }
>
>> If the structure is set to NULL, the system call will not try to 
>> write to the structure. So perhaps we should just change the method 
>> to the following.
>> void process_sleep( double s )
>> { QF_STACK_PUSH(process_sleep)
>> #ifdef _MSC_VER
>> Sleep( ( long ) s * 1000 );
>> #else
>> timespec time;
>
> 	timespec time, remainder;
>
>> double intpart;
>> time.tv_nsec = (int)modf(s, &intpart);
>> time.tv_nsec *= 1000000000;
>
> Am I stupid? If I cast the fractional part returned from modf() to 
> int, wouldn't it get 0? I would expect something like:
>
> 	time.tv_nsec = (long) ((modf(s, &intpart) * 1e6);
>
>> time.tv_sec = (int)intpart;
>
> 	time.tv_sec = (time_t) intpart;
>
>> nanosleep(&time, NULL);
>
> 	while ( -1 == nanosleep( &time, &remainder ) ) {
> 	    time = remainder;
> 	}
>
>> #endif
>> QF_STACK_POP
>> }
>
> -- 
> Joerg Thoennes
>                                http://macd.com
> Tel.: +49 (0)241 44597-24      Macdonald Associates GmbH
> Fax : +49 (0)241 44597-10      Lothringer Str. 52, D-52070 Aachen
>