Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:10:02 -0800 (PST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/13644 Message-ID: <199912280610.WAA97474@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/13644; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@kot.ne.mediaone.net> Cc: jasone@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG, lawlopez@cisco.com, jseger@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/13644 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:03:47 +1100 (EST) On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > Bruce Evans once stated: > > =On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > => This is NOT what the man page states: > => > => If timeout is a non-nil pointer, it specifies a maximum > => interval to wait for the selection to complete. > = > =This is a bug in the man page. It is so poorly worded that it is > =broken. > > The Solaris man-page says the same (man -s 3c select): > > If timeout is not a NULL pointer, it specifies a maximum > interval to wait for the selection to complete. > > And Linux (man 2 select): > > timeout is an upper bound on the amount of time elapsed > before select returns. > > Are both of them wrong too?.. I'm sure TCL developers saw more selects Yes. The Linux one is completely broken, since it appaers to guarantee a maximum time before the _return_. Only very fast hard realtime systems can guarantee that anything happens in an interval of 1us. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912280610.WAA97474>