This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: Possible Bug in Cyg_Alarm ...
- From: "Thomas BINDER" <Thomas dot BINDER at frequentis dot com>
- To: <larice at vidisys dot de>
- Cc: <ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 12:49:10 +0200
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] Possible Bug in Cyg_Alarm ...
>>> Larice Robert <larice@vidisys.de> 08/07/02 09:52am >>>
hello Thomas,
> a tiny improvement of your problem description is to say:
[...]
Sorry for the lack of information, I thought this was abvious :-)
> i vote for your patch.
> but it is necessairy to check whether there is somewhere a specification which gurantees the execution order of alarm callbacks. your patch reverses this order.
Yes, the order of alarm intialization and callback execution is reversed for all alarms that expire at the same absolute counter value. Unfortunately, keeping the order of callback executions makes add_alarm a little less efficient.
Maybe it should be (compile time) configurable whether the order should be preserved or not.
Tom
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss