;; microsecond but also has a range of years.
;; CLH: Note that tv-usec used to be a time-t, but that this seems
;; problematic on Darwin x86-64 (and wrong). Trying suseconds-t.
-#!-win32
+#!-(or win32 openbsd)
(define-alien-type nil
(struct timeval
(tv-sec time-t) ; seconds
(tv-usec suseconds-t))) ; and microseconds
+;; The above definition doesn't work on 64-bit OpenBSD platforms.
+;; Both tv_sec and tv_usec are declared as long instead of time_t, and
+;; time_t is a typedef for int.
+#!+openbsd
+(define-alien-type nil
+ (struct timeval
+ (tv-sec long) ; seconds
+ (tv-usec long))) ; and microseconds
+
#!+win32
(define-alien-type nil
(struct timeval
;; the POSIX.4 structure for a time value. This is like a "struct
;; timeval" but has nanoseconds instead of microseconds.
+#!-openbsd
(define-alien-type nil
(struct timespec
(tv-sec long) ; seconds
(tv-nsec long))) ; nanoseconds
+;; Just as with struct timeval, 64-bit OpenBSD has problems with the
+;; above definition. tv_sec is declared as time_t instead of long,
+;; and time_t is a typedef for int.
+#!+openbsd
+(define-alien-type nil
+ (struct timespec
+ (tv-sec time-t) ; seconds
+ (tv-nsec long))) ; nanoseconds
+
;; used by other time functions
(define-alien-type nil
(struct tm
(setf (values e-sec e-msec) (system-real-time-values)
c-sec 0
c-msec 0))
- ;; If two threads call this at the same time, we're still safe, I believe,
- ;; as long as NOW is updated before either of C-MSEC or C-SEC. Same applies
- ;; to interrupts. --NS
+ ;; If two threads call this at the same time, we're still safe, I
+ ;; believe, as long as NOW is updated before either of C-MSEC or
+ ;; C-SEC. Same applies to interrupts. --NS
+ ;;
+ ;; I believe this is almost correct with x86/x86-64 cache
+ ;; coherency, but if the new value of C-SEC, C-MSEC can become
+ ;; visible to another CPU without NOW doing the same then it's
+ ;; unsafe. It's `almost' correct on x86 because writes by other
+ ;; processors may become visible in any order provided transitity
+ ;; holds. With at least three cpus, C-MSEC and C-SEC may be from
+ ;; different threads and an incorrect value may be returned.
+ ;; Considering that this failure is not detectable by the caller -
+ ;; it looks like time passes a bit slowly - and that it should be
+ ;; an extremely rare occurance I'm inclinded to leave it as it is.
+ ;; --MG
(defun get-internal-real-time ()
(multiple-value-bind (sec msec) (system-real-time-values)
(unless (and (= msec c-msec) (= sec c-sec))