Re: Optimized gcc 4.3.0 build on Windows returns 0 secs for all time values of system-process-attributes

[dhruva]

Here is a modified patch that seems to give me different values! Not
sure how to interpret it though :(

[dk]bzr diff
=== modified file 'src/w32.c'
--- src/w32.c   2008-12-20 02:50:35 +0000
+++ src/w32.c   2009-01-01 13:39:13 +0000
@@ -2739,26 +2739,27 @@
 }

 static FILETIME utc_base_ft;
-static long double utc_base;
+static LONGLONG utc_base;
 static int init = 0;

-static long double
+static LONGLONG
 convert_time_raw (FILETIME ft)
 {
-  return
-    (long double) ft.dwHighDateTime
-    * 4096.0L * 1024.0L * 1024.0L + ft.dwLowDateTime;
+  LARGE_INTEGER tmp_var;
+  tmp_var.LowPart = ft.dwLowDateTime;
+  tmp_var.HighPart = ft.dwHighDateTime;
+
+  return tmp_var.QuadPart;
 }

 static time_t
 convert_time (FILETIME ft)
 {
-  long double ret;
-
   if (!init)
     {
       /* Determine the delta between 1-Jan-1601 and 1-Jan-1970. */
       SYSTEMTIME st;
+      LARGE_INTEGER utc;

       st.wYear = 1970;
       st.wMonth = 1;
@@ -2769,8 +2770,9 @@
       st.wMilliseconds = 0;

       SystemTimeToFileTime (&st, &utc_base_ft);
-      utc_base = (long double) utc_base_ft.dwHighDateTime
-       * 4096.0L * 1024.0L * 1024.0L + utc_base_ft.dwLowDateTime;
+      utc.LowPart = utc_base_ft.dwLowDateTime;
+      utc.HighPart = utc_base_ft.dwHighDateTime;
+      utc_base = utc.QuadPart;
       init = 1;
     }

@@ -2784,12 +2786,13 @@
 void
 convert_from_time_t (time_t time, FILETIME * pft)
 {
-  long double tmp;
+  LARGE_INTEGER tmp;

   if (!init)
     {
       /* Determine the delta between 1-Jan-1601 and 1-Jan-1970. */
       SYSTEMTIME st;
+      LARGE_INTEGER utc;

       st.wYear = 1970;
       st.wMonth = 1;
@@ -2800,15 +2803,16 @@
       st.wMilliseconds = 0;

       SystemTimeToFileTime (&st, &utc_base_ft);
-      utc_base = (long double) utc_base_ft.dwHighDateTime
-       * 4096 * 1024 * 1024 + utc_base_ft.dwLowDateTime;
+      utc.LowPart = utc_base_ft.dwLowDateTime;
+      utc.HighPart = utc_base_ft.dwHighDateTime;
+      utc_base = utc.QuadPart;
       init = 1;
     }

   /* time in 100ns units since 1-Jan-1601 */
-  tmp = (long double) time * 1e7 + utc_base;
-  pft->dwHighDateTime = (DWORD) (tmp / (4096.0 * 1024 * 1024));
-  pft->dwLowDateTime = (DWORD) (tmp - (4096.0 * 1024 * 1024) *
pft->dwHighDateTime);
+  tmp.QuadPart = time * 1e7 + utc_base;
+  pft->dwHighDateTime = tmp.HighPart;
+  pft->dwLowDateTime = tmp.LowPart;
 }

 #if 0
@@ -3777,9 +3781,9 @@
      double *pcpu;
 {
   FILETIME ft_creation, ft_exit, ft_kernel, ft_user, ft_current;
-  long ctime_sec, ctime_usec, stime_sec, stime_usec, utime_sec, utime_usec;
-  long etime_sec, etime_usec;
-  long double tem1, tem2, tem;
+  LONGLONG ctime_sec, ctime_usec, stime_sec, stime_usec, utime_sec, utime_usec;
+  LONGLONG etime_sec, etime_usec;
+  LONGLONG tem1, tem2, tem;

   if (!h_proc
       || !get_process_times_fn


On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Jason Rumney <address@hidden> wrote:
> dhruva wrote:
>>
>> +  return tmp_var.QuadPart * 4096.0L * 1024.0L * 1024.0L;
>>
>
> Shouldn't this just be return tmp_var.QuadPart?
>

I guess you are right, I did not understand all the math till you pointed out.


-- 
Contents reflect my personal views only!