From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Apr 20  8:34:44 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E4FE714E04
	for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it)
Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id PAA23736; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 15:16:35 +0200
From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Message-Id: <199904201316.PAA23736@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Subject: Re: Using select() to implement a delay
To: wes@softweyr.com (Wes Peters)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 15:16:35 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: gram@cdsec.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <371C9D1D.CBBB6A8F@softweyr.com> from "Wes Peters" at Apr 20, 99 09:28:10 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 350       
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> > I have an interesting problem. I have a routine to implement delays:
...
> > I am using this both because it gives better resolution than sleep(),
> > and also because it doesn't require the use of SIGALRM, which I am
> > using elsewhere.
> 
> Do you have any reasons not to use usleep(3) or nanosleep(2)?

portability to other unixes...

	luigi


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message