From owner-freebsd-current Wed Nov 13 11:26:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D1B237B401 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:26:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from rootlabs.com (root.org [67.118.192.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4EC6D43E3B for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:26:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@rootlabs.com) Received: (qmail 40274 invoked by uid 1000); 13 Nov 2002 19:26:44 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:26:44 -0800 (PST) From: Nate Lawson To: Garrett Wollman Cc: Sheldon Hearn , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sleep(1) behavior In-Reply-To: <200211131903.gADJ3OuR066070@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > > > Thanks, that's what I was expecting. The attached patch provides the > > following behavior: > > > sleep 0 = exit 0 immediately > > sleep [ \t]*1AAAA = sleep 1 second > > sleep [ \t]*\.2zzz = sleep .2 seconds > > sleep [ \t]*-.* = usage() > > I believe that the language in the Standard was adopted so that an > implementation can just use strtoul() and have the Standard Thing > happen. So "sleep -1" should sleep for ~0UL seconds? And should usage() ever be called then? -Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message