--- libev/ev.pod	2011/01/17 12:11:12	1.360
+++ libev/ev.pod	2011/10/15 02:19:19	1.383
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@
      // now wait for events to arrive
      ev_run (loop, 0);
 
-     // unloop was called, so exit
+     // break was called, so exit
      return 0;
    }
 
@@ -180,9 +180,15 @@
 
 =item ev_sleep (ev_tstamp interval)
 
-Sleep for the given interval: The current thread will be blocked until
-either it is interrupted or the given time interval has passed. Basically
-this is a sub-second-resolution C<sleep ()>.
+Sleep for the given interval: The current thread will be blocked
+until either it is interrupted or the given time interval has
+passed (approximately - it might return a bit earlier even if not
+interrupted). Returns immediately if C<< interval <= 0 >>.
+
+Basically this is a sub-second-resolution C<sleep ()>.
+
+The range of the C<interval> is limited - libev only guarantees to work
+with sleep times of up to one day (C<< interval <= 86400 >>).
 
 =item int ev_version_major ()
 
@@ -437,7 +443,7 @@
 =item C<EVFLAG_NOSIGMASK>
 
 When this flag is specified, then libev will avoid to modify the signal
-mask. Specifically, this means you ahve to make sure signals are unblocked
+mask. Specifically, this means you have to make sure signals are unblocked
 when you want to receive them.
 
 This behaviour is useful when you want to do your own signal handling, or
@@ -485,10 +491,10 @@
 Use the linux-specific epoll(7) interface (for both pre- and post-2.6.9
 kernels).
 
-For few fds, this backend is a bit little slower than poll and select,
-but it scales phenomenally better. While poll and select usually scale
-like O(total_fds) where n is the total number of fds (or the highest fd),
-epoll scales either O(1) or O(active_fds).
+For few fds, this backend is a bit little slower than poll and select, but
+it scales phenomenally better. While poll and select usually scale like
+O(total_fds) where total_fds is the total number of fds (or the highest
+fd), epoll scales either O(1) or O(active_fds).
 
 The epoll mechanism deserves honorable mention as the most misdesigned
 of the more advanced event mechanisms: mere annoyances include silently
@@ -501,19 +507,22 @@
 set, which can take considerable time (one syscall per file descriptor)
 and is of course hard to detect.
 
-Epoll is also notoriously buggy - embedding epoll fds I<should> work, but
-of course I<doesn't>, and epoll just loves to report events for totally
-I<different> file descriptors (even already closed ones, so one cannot
-even remove them from the set) than registered in the set (especially
-on SMP systems). Libev tries to counter these spurious notifications by
-employing an additional generation counter and comparing that against the
-events to filter out spurious ones, recreating the set when required. Last
+Epoll is also notoriously buggy - embedding epoll fds I<should> work,
+but of course I<doesn't>, and epoll just loves to report events for
+totally I<different> file descriptors (even already closed ones, so
+one cannot even remove them from the set) than registered in the set
+(especially on SMP systems). Libev tries to counter these spurious
+notifications by employing an additional generation counter and comparing
+that against the events to filter out spurious ones, recreating the set
+when required. Epoll also erroneously rounds down timeouts, but gives you
+no way to know when and by how much, so sometimes you have to busy-wait
+because epoll returns immediately despite a nonzero timeout. And last
 not least, it also refuses to work with some file descriptors which work
 perfectly fine with C<select> (files, many character devices...).
 
-Epoll is truly the train wreck analog among event poll mechanisms,
-a frankenpoll, cobbled together in a hurry, no thought to design or
-interaction with others.
+Epoll is truly the train wreck among event poll mechanisms, a frankenpoll,
+cobbled together in a hurry, no thought to design or interaction with
+others. Oh, the pain, will it ever stop...
 
 While stopping, setting and starting an I/O watcher in the same iteration
 will result in some caching, there is still a system call per such
@@ -601,11 +610,11 @@
 
 On the negative side, the interface is I<bizarre> - so bizarre that
 even sun itself gets it wrong in their code examples: The event polling
-function sometimes returning events to the caller even though an error
+function sometimes returns events to the caller even though an error
 occurred, but with no indication whether it has done so or not (yes, it's
-even documented that way) - deadly for edge-triggered interfaces where
-you absolutely have to know whether an event occurred or not because you
-have to re-arm the watcher.
+even documented that way) - deadly for edge-triggered interfaces where you
+absolutely have to know whether an event occurred or not because you have
+to re-arm the watcher.
 
 Fortunately libev seems to be able to work around these idiocies.
 
@@ -827,7 +836,9 @@
 own C<ev_run>"). However, a pair of C<ev_prepare>/C<ev_check> watchers is
 usually a better approach for this kind of thing.
 
-Here are the gory details of what C<ev_run> does:
+Here are the gory details of what C<ev_run> does (this is for your
+understanding, not a guarantee that things will work exactly like this in
+future versions):
 
    - Increment loop depth.
    - Reset the ev_break status.
@@ -870,7 +881,7 @@
    ... queue jobs here, make sure they register event watchers as long
    ... as they still have work to do (even an idle watcher will do..)
    ev_run (my_loop, 0);
-   ... jobs done or somebody called unloop. yeah!
+   ... jobs done or somebody called break. yeah!
 
 =item ev_break (loop, how)
 
@@ -943,10 +954,11 @@
 By setting a higher I<io collect interval> you allow libev to spend more
 time collecting I/O events, so you can handle more events per iteration,
 at the cost of increasing latency. Timeouts (both C<ev_periodic> and
-C<ev_timer>) will be not affected. Setting this to a non-null value will
+C<ev_timer>) will not be affected. Setting this to a non-null value will
 introduce an additional C<ev_sleep ()> call into most loop iterations. The
 sleep time ensures that libev will not poll for I/O events more often then
-once per this interval, on average.
+once per this interval, on average (as long as the host time resolution is
+good enough).
 
 Likewise, by setting a higher I<timeout collect interval> you allow libev
 to spend more time collecting timeouts, at the expense of increased
@@ -1376,12 +1388,14 @@
 
 =item initialiased
 
-Before a watcher can be registered with the event looop it has to be
+Before a watcher can be registered with the event loop it has to be
 initialised. This can be done with a call to C<ev_TYPE_init>, or calls to
 C<ev_init> followed by the watcher-specific C<ev_TYPE_set> function.
 
-In this state it is simply some block of memory that is suitable for use
-in an event loop. It can be moved around, freed, reused etc. at will.
+In this state it is simply some block of memory that is suitable for
+use in an event loop. It can be moved around, freed, reused etc. at
+will - as long as you either keep the memory contents intact, or call
+C<ev_TYPE_init> again.
 
 =item started/running/active
 
@@ -1419,8 +1433,9 @@
 freeing it is often a good idea.
 
 While stopped (and not pending) the watcher is essentially in the
-initialised state, that is it can be reused, moved, modified in any way
-you wish.
+initialised state, that is, it can be reused, moved, modified in any way
+you wish (but when you trash the memory block, you need to C<ev_TYPE_init>
+it again).
 
 =back
 
@@ -1758,10 +1773,11 @@
 
 The callback is guaranteed to be invoked only I<after> its timeout has
 passed (not I<at>, so on systems with very low-resolution clocks this
-might introduce a small delay). If multiple timers become ready during the
-same loop iteration then the ones with earlier time-out values are invoked
-before ones of the same priority with later time-out values (but this is
-no longer true when a callback calls C<ev_run> recursively).
+might introduce a small delay, see "the special problem of being too
+early", below). If multiple timers become ready during the same loop
+iteration then the ones with earlier time-out values are invoked before
+ones of the same priority with later time-out values (but this is no
+longer true when a callback calls C<ev_run> recursively).
 
 =head3 Be smart about timeouts
 
@@ -1938,10 +1954,47 @@
 off after the first million or so of active timers, i.e. it's usually
 overkill :)
 
+=head3 The special problem of being too early
+
+If you ask a timer to call your callback after three seconds, then
+you expect it to be invoked after three seconds - but of course, this
+cannot be guaranteed to infinite precision. Less obviously, it cannot be
+guaranteed to any precision by libev - imagine somebody suspending the
+process a STOP signal for a few hours for example.
+
+So, libev tries to invoke your callback as soon as possible I<after> the
+delay has occurred, but cannot guarantee this.
+
+A less obvious failure mode is calling your callback too early: many event
+loops compare timestamps with a "elapsed delay >= requested delay", but
+this can cause your callback to be invoked much earlier than you would
+expect.
+
+To see why, imagine a system with a clock that only offers full second
+resolution (think windows if you can't come up with a broken enough OS
+yourself). If you schedule a one-second timer at the time 500.9, then the
+event loop will schedule your timeout to elapse at a system time of 500
+(500.9 truncated to the resolution) + 1, or 501.
+
+If an event library looks at the timeout 0.1s later, it will see "501 >=
+501" and invoke the callback 0.1s after it was started, even though a
+one-second delay was requested - this is being "too early", despite best
+intentions.
+
+This is the reason why libev will never invoke the callback if the elapsed
+delay equals the requested delay, but only when the elapsed delay is
+larger than the requested delay. In the example above, libev would only invoke
+the callback at system time 502, or 1.1s after the timer was started.
+
+So, while libev cannot guarantee that your callback will be invoked
+exactly when requested, it I<can> and I<does> guarantee that the requested
+delay has actually elapsed, or in other words, it always errs on the "too
+late" side of things.
+
 =head3 The special problem of time updates
 
-Establishing the current time is a costly operation (it usually takes at
-least two system calls): EV therefore updates its idea of the current
+Establishing the current time is a costly operation (it usually takes
+at least one system call): EV therefore updates its idea of the current
 time only before and after C<ev_run> collects new events, which causes a
 growing difference between C<ev_now ()> and C<ev_time ()> when handling
 lots of events in one iteration.
@@ -1958,6 +2011,39 @@
 update of the time returned by C<ev_now ()> by calling C<ev_now_update
 ()>.
 
+=head3 The special problem of unsynchronised clocks
+
+Modern systems have a variety of clocks - libev itself uses the normal
+"wall clock" clock and, if available, the monotonic clock (to avoid time
+jumps).
+
+Neither of these clocks is synchronised with each other or any other clock
+on the system, so C<ev_time ()> might return a considerably different time
+than C<gettimeofday ()> or C<time ()>. On a GNU/Linux system, for example,
+a call to C<gettimeofday> might return a second count that is one higher
+than a directly following call to C<time>.
+
+The moral of this is to only compare libev-related timestamps with
+C<ev_time ()> and C<ev_now ()>, at least if you want better precision than
+a second or so.
+
+One more problem arises due to this lack of synchronisation: if libev uses
+the system monotonic clock and you compare timestamps from C<ev_time>
+or C<ev_now> from when you started your timer and when your callback is
+invoked, you will find that sometimes the callback is a bit "early".
+
+This is because C<ev_timer>s work in real time, not wall clock time, so
+libev makes sure your callback is not invoked before the delay happened,
+I<measured according to the real time>, not the system clock.
+
+If your timeouts are based on a physical timescale (e.g. "time out this
+connection after 100 seconds") then this shouldn't bother you as it is
+exactly the right behaviour.
+
+If you want to compare wall clock/system timestamps to your timers, then
+you need to use C<ev_periodic>s, as these are based on the wall clock
+time, where your comparisons will always generate correct results.
+
 =head3 The special problems of suspended animation
 
 When you leave the server world it is quite customary to hit machines that
@@ -2010,7 +2096,7 @@
 
 =item ev_timer_again (loop, ev_timer *)
 
-This will act as if the timer timed out and restart it again if it is
+This will act as if the timer timed out and restarts it again if it is
 repeating. The exact semantics are:
 
 If the timer is pending, its pending status is cleared.
@@ -2150,9 +2236,12 @@
 C<ev_periodic> will try to run the callback in this mode at the next possible
 time where C<time = offset (mod interval)>, regardless of any time jumps.
 
-For numerical stability it is preferable that the C<offset> value is near
-C<ev_now ()> (the current time), but there is no range requirement for
-this value, and in fact is often specified as zero.
+The C<interval> I<MUST> be positive, and for numerical stability, the
+interval value should be higher than C<1/8192> (which is around 100
+microseconds) and C<offset> should be higher than C<0> and should have
+at most a similar magnitude as the current time (say, within a factor of
+ten). Typical values for offset are, in fact, C<0> or something between
+C<0> and C<interval>, which is also the recommended range.
 
 Note also that there is an upper limit to how often a timer can fire (CPU
 speed for example), so if C<interval> is very small then timing stability
@@ -3187,7 +3276,7 @@
 
 =head2 C<ev_async> - how to wake up an event loop
 
-In general, you cannot use an C<ev_run> from multiple threads or other
+In general, you cannot use an C<ev_loop> from multiple threads or other
 asynchronous sources such as signal handlers (as opposed to multiple event
 loops - those are of course safe to use in different threads).
 
@@ -3204,9 +3293,6 @@
 signal, and C<ev_feed_signal> to signal this watcher from another thread,
 even without knowing which loop owns the signal.
 
-Unlike C<ev_signal> watchers, C<ev_async> works with any event loop, not
-just the default loop.
-
 =head3 Queueing
 
 C<ev_async> does not support queueing of data in any way. The reason
@@ -3307,19 +3393,24 @@
 =item ev_async_send (loop, ev_async *)
 
 Sends/signals/activates the given C<ev_async> watcher, that is, feeds
-an C<EV_ASYNC> event on the watcher into the event loop. Unlike
-C<ev_feed_event>, this call is safe to do from other threads, signal or
-similar contexts (see the discussion of C<EV_ATOMIC_T> in the embedding
-section below on what exactly this means).
+an C<EV_ASYNC> event on the watcher into the event loop, and instantly
+returns.
+
+Unlike C<ev_feed_event>, this call is safe to do from other threads,
+signal or similar contexts (see the discussion of C<EV_ATOMIC_T> in the
+embedding section below on what exactly this means).
 
 Note that, as with other watchers in libev, multiple events might get
-compressed into a single callback invocation (another way to look at this
-is that C<ev_async> watchers are level-triggered, set on C<ev_async_send>,
-reset when the event loop detects that).
-
-This call incurs the overhead of a system call only once per event loop
-iteration, so while the overhead might be noticeable, it doesn't apply to
-repeated calls to C<ev_async_send> for the same event loop.
+compressed into a single callback invocation (another way to look at
+this is that C<ev_async> watchers are level-triggered: they are set on
+C<ev_async_send>, reset when the event loop detects that).
+
+This call incurs the overhead of at most one extra system call per event
+loop iteration, if the event loop is blocked, and no syscall at all if
+the event loop (or your program) is processing events. That means that
+repeated calls are basically free (there is no need to avoid calls for
+performance reasons) and that the overhead becomes smaller (typically
+zero) under load.
 
 =item bool = ev_async_pending (ev_async *)
 
@@ -3546,7 +3637,7 @@
       ev_set_invoke_pending_cb (EV_A_ l_invoke);
       ev_set_loop_release_cb (EV_A_ l_release, l_acquire);
 
-      // then create the thread running ev_loop
+      // then create the thread running ev_run
       pthread_create (&u->tid, 0, l_run, EV_A);
    }
 
@@ -3926,7 +4017,7 @@
    class myclass
    {
      ev::io   io  ; void io_cb   (ev::io   &w, int revents);
-     ev::io2  io2 ; void io2_cb  (ev::io   &w, int revents);
+     ev::io   io2 ; void io2_cb  (ev::io   &w, int revents);
      ev::idle idle; void idle_cb (ev::idle &w, int revents);
 
      myclass (int fd)
@@ -3987,7 +4078,7 @@
 =item D
 
 Leandro Lucarella has written a D language binding (F<ev.d>) for libev, to
-be found at L<http://proj.llucax.com.ar/wiki/evd>.
+be found at L<http://www.llucax.com.ar/proj/ev.d/index.html>.
 
 =item Ocaml
 
@@ -4045,7 +4136,11 @@
 =item C<EV_DEFAULT>, C<EV_DEFAULT_>
 
 Similar to the other two macros, this gives you the value of the default
-loop, if multiple loops are supported ("ev loop default").
+loop, if multiple loops are supported ("ev loop default"). The default loop
+will be initialised if it isn't already initialised.
+
+For non-multiplicity builds, these macros do nothing, so you always have
+to initialise the loop somewhere.
 
 =item C<EV_DEFAULT_UC>, C<EV_DEFAULT_UC_>
 
@@ -4201,6 +4296,15 @@
 In standalone mode, libev will still try to automatically deduce the
 configuration, but has to be more conservative.
 
+=item EV_USE_FLOOR
+
+If defined to be C<1>, libev will use the C<floor ()> function for its
+periodic reschedule calculations, otherwise libev will fall back on a
+portable (slower) implementation. If you enable this, you usually have to
+link against libm or something equivalent. Enabling this when the C<floor>
+function is not available will fail, so the safe default is to not enable
+this.
+
 =item EV_USE_MONOTONIC
 
 If defined to be C<1>, libev will try to detect the availability of the
@@ -4342,13 +4446,16 @@
 =item EV_ATOMIC_T
 
 Libev requires an integer type (suitable for storing C<0> or C<1>) whose
-access is atomic with respect to other threads or signal contexts. No such
-type is easily found in the C language, so you can provide your own type
-that you know is safe for your purposes. It is used both for signal handler "locking"
-as well as for signal and thread safety in C<ev_async> watchers.
+access is atomic and serialised with respect to other threads or signal
+contexts. No such type is easily found in the C language, so you can
+provide your own type that you know is safe for your purposes. It is used
+both for signal handler "locking" as well as for signal and thread safety
+in C<ev_async> watchers.
 
 In the absence of this define, libev will use C<sig_atomic_t volatile>
-(from F<signal.h>), which is usually good enough on most platforms.
+(from F<signal.h>), which is usually good enough on most platforms,
+although strictly speaking using a type that also implies a memory fence
+is required.
 
 =item EV_H (h)
 
@@ -4382,6 +4489,10 @@
 for multiple event loops and there is no first event loop pointer
 argument. Instead, all functions act on the single default loop.
 
+Note that C<EV_DEFAULT> and C<EV_DEFAULT_> will no longer provide a
+default loop when multiplicity is switched off - you always have to
+initialise the loop manually in this case.
+
 =item EV_MINPRI
 
 =item EV_MAXPRI
@@ -4877,7 +4988,7 @@
 the form of the C<EVBACKEND_SELECT> backend, and only supports socket
 descriptors. This only applies when using Win32 natively, not when using
 e.g. cygwin. Actually, it only applies to the microsofts own compilers,
-as every compielr comes with a slightly differently broken/incompatible
+as every compiler comes with a slightly differently broken/incompatible
 environment.
 
 Lifting these limitations would basically require the full
@@ -5020,8 +5131,12 @@
 have at least 51 bits of mantissa (and 9 bits of exponent), which is
 good enough for at least into the year 4000 with millisecond accuracy
 (the design goal for libev). This requirement is overfulfilled by
-implementations using IEEE 754, which is basically all existing ones. With
-IEEE 754 doubles, you get microsecond accuracy until at least 2200.
+implementations using IEEE 754, which is basically all existing ones.
+
+With IEEE 754 doubles, you get microsecond accuracy until at least the
+year 2255 (and millisecond accuracy till the year 287396 - by then, libev
+is either obsolete or somebody patched it to use C<long double> or
+something like that, just kidding).
 
 =back
 
@@ -5093,8 +5208,9 @@
 =item Processing signals: O(max_signal_number)
 
 Sending involves a system call I<iff> there were no other C<ev_async_send>
-calls in the current loop iteration. Checking for async and signal events
-involves iterating over all running async watchers or all signal numbers.
+calls in the current loop iteration and the loop is currently
+blocked. Checking for async and signal events involves iterating over all
+running async watchers or all signal numbers.
 
 =back
 
@@ -5221,7 +5337,7 @@
 =item wall-clock time
 
 The time and date as shown on clocks. Unlike real time, it can actually
-be wrong and jump forwards and backwards, e.g. when the you adjust your
+be wrong and jump forwards and backwards, e.g. when you adjust your
 clock.
 
 =item watcher
@@ -5234,5 +5350,5 @@
 =head1 AUTHOR
 
 Marc Lehmann <libev@schmorp.de>, with repeated corrections by Mikael
-Magnusson and Emanuele Giaquinta.
+Magnusson and Emanuele Giaquinta, and minor corrections by many others.