Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:22:12 +0200 From: Graham Wheeler <gram@cdsec.com> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using select() to implement a delay Message-ID: <371D98C4.DC0E61D1@cdsec.com> References: <199904201316.PAA23736@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> <371CA30F.6F84565B@cdsec.com> <371D234A.E5C2AD8D@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wes Peters wrote: > > Graham Wheeler wrote: > > > > As well as the fact that usleep uses signals. > > Whatever gave you that idea? From the 3.1 man page for usleep: > > This function is implemented using nanosleep(2) by pausing for > microseconds microseconds or until a signal occurs. Consequently, in > this implementation, sleeping has no effect on the state of process > timers, and there is no special handling for SIGALRM. I saw that. But I also looked at the source. The thread-safe implementation calls microsleep; the non-thread safe implementation uses itimers and messes with SIGALRM handling (that is in 2.2.7). My code needs to run on FreeBSD 2.2.2 and later. So I'm playing safe. -- Dr Graham Wheeler E-mail: gram@cdsec.com Citadel Data Security Phone: +27(21)423-6065/6/7 Firewalls/Virtual Private Networks Fax: +27(21)24-3656 Internet/Intranet Network Specialists Data Security Products WWW: http://www.cdsec.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?371D98C4.DC0E61D1>