Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 16:56:48 +0400 (MSD) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Peter Wemm <peter@spinner.dialix.com.au> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: sleep (was Re: Application os version compatibility?) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970706165328.498A-100000@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <868192049.512817@haywire.dialix.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6 Jul 1997, Peter Wemm wrote: > Take programs using sleep() in 3.0. If you statically link a program under > 3.0, sleep() makes a call to either the nanosleep() or signanosleep() syscall > (depending on the age of libc). If you try and run this program under 2.2 > or 2.1, it'll get a SIGSYS and die when it tries to sleep. /bin/sleep is > the primary offender. On the other hand, a dynamically linked /bin/sleep > works on both systems because both branches provide their own implementation > of sleep(3). Peter, why not remove special handling of ignored ALARMs in sleep() code? It is not compatible with world sleep() implementations and gives no advantages, but can cause potential incompatibility in future. I remember you agree with this statement too. -- Andrey A. Chernov <ache@null.net> http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970706165328.498A-100000>