From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Oct 17 10:07:44 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id KAA01033 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 10:07:44 -0700 Received: from expo.x.org (expo.x.org [198.112.45.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA01028 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 10:07:42 -0700 Received: from exalt.x.org by expo.x.org id AA06433; Tue, 17 Oct 95 13:07:10 -0400 Received: from localhost by exalt.x.org id NAA09860; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:07:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199510171707.NAA09860@exalt.x.org> To: jdp@polstra.com (John Polstra) Cc: hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: getdtablesize() broken? In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:34:00 EST. Organization: X Consortium Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:07:07 EST From: "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > > [Responding to a claim by Terry that poll doesn't support simple timed > > > waits not involving file descriptors] > > > > > > That hasn't been my experience. poll(0, NULL, 10000); waits 10 seconds > > > on SunOS, all SVR4-en I have here, HPUX, and AIX; however Digital Unix's > > > poll looses. In fact in SVR4 select(3) is implemented using poll(2). > > > > That's a bug in SVR4. SVR4 is broken and bogus in many, many ways. > > You're confusing me. First you say that poll is no good because it > doesn't support simple timed waits. Then somebody points out that you > were wrong, and poll does in fact support that. So then you say that > polls which work that way are broken. > I think Terry simply that it was a bug that select was implemented using poll on SVR4. -- Kaleb