site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com On 2007-09-05, at 01:06, Terry Lambert wrote: AbsoluteTime deadlineTime; memcpy(&deadlineTime, deadline, sizeof(deadline)); A Google for the following keywords will find you a bunch of examples: compile errors for AbsoluteTime -- Terry -- Best Regards, Markus Hanauska _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-kernel mailing list (Darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-kernel/site_archiver%40lists.a... Okay, but in that case, could Apple please update their webpage to represent the code in a way that compiles. Many people tried to tell me, that this depends on the system version, however, I checked for 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 and it's always the same, at least to the SDKs found in my Xcode installation. I tried the memcpy solution, and it worked just fine, though it's a lot of code to do a small thing, sleeping for a couple of ms. So as someone suggested, I'm now using IOSleep instead, which seems to do exactly what I want to do (why would I want to do IODelay? Where is the advantage of wasting plenty of CPU time for a couple of ms - a spin lock is maybe meaningful if you sleep for a couple of ns or us, because there the sleep/wake-up would take longer than the actual time to sleep, but if you sleep more than one ms, I guess it's fine to real put the thread to sleep). Basically this sleep is only performed if the kext is unloaded and honestly, how often does that happen on a system? It's basically something only developers need (real users usually don't manually unload kexts) - so any performance hit that IOSleep may produce is acceptable. On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:22 AM, Markus Hanauska wrote: I can't cast a number to a struct. Publishing source code that is supposed to not even compile is not only silly and confusing programmers, it's outreight useless. Seeing that the struct is endian safe, I assume I can do the following: correct? You can do that, or you can explicitly coerce the type at the call site (you can cast the address of a struct to a number pointer, and dereferernce it if you are calling the one function, or explicitly reference it if you're not. This is basically a wart from the passing of the address of the hi and lo values into a number of functions in user space case, which means we could not convert it to a 64 bit type without changing the symbol decoration used by C++, which would have introduced binary compatibility issues. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com