<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.webkit.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - REGRESSION (r188642): All pages are blank when printing a webpage in iOS Safari"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=157924#c5">Comment # 5</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - REGRESSION (r188642): All pages are blank when printing a webpage in iOS Safari"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=157924">bug 157924</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:aestes@apple.com" title="Andy Estes <aestes@apple.com>"> <span class="fn">Andy Estes</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=157924#c4">comment #4</a>)
<span class="quote">> There are two issues I think:
>
> 1) The functional style would have you let WTF::Condition do the time math
> for you. Instead of having a wait loop, do:
>
> m_condition.waitFor(m_lock, timeout, [&] () -> bool { loop body });</span >
Unfortunately this would just move the overflow into Condition::absoluteFromRelative(), where have these two lines:
Clock::duration myRelativeTimeout =
std::chrono::duration_cast<Clock::duration>(relativeTimeout);
return Clock::now() + myRelativeTimeout;
libc++ represents both nanoseconds and milliseconds using the same type (long long), so the duration_cast will overflow trying to convert the largest long long into an even larger number of nanosecond ticks. Now we're right back where we started, subtracting from Clock::now() instead of adding.
<span class="quote">>
> 2) The style that I've been settling on is to just use doubles for time.
> Maybe when I have time to mess around I'll propose that we do this. I've
> encountered so many bugs due to std::chrono having overflows where our old
> double-based time code would have recovered like a champ. In fact, one of
> those overflows was in GCC's version of libstdc++! It would cause some uses
> of std::condition_variable to freak out on Linux but not anywhere else.
>
> In this case, we could just go back to using a double timeout.
> waitForSeconds(+Inf) should correctly cause our code to recognize that you
> want to timeout forever.
>
> I'm also fine with Geoff's proposed solution.</span >
Yeah, this is basically what I proposed doing in Radar, although now Geoff made me realize that my patch has a totally unnecessary subtraction in it!
Thanks for the feedback, Geoff and Phil.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>