Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 15:13:16 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSD sleep Message-ID: <20130529151316.74797552@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-WNBa-N6iw5wE=ODPfDcJhZv7LmTxvi7FOT1seCU87YA@mail.gmail.com> References: <20130528230140.A5B396F448@smtp.hushmail.com> <51A541B5.3010905@gmail.com> <CAHu1Y71hY=utT-d4_-B-zuf=W3d_hHPCbM1CkuN8X7Sra_m0_A@mail.gmail.com> <51A59C60.3010709@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo83-WNBa-N6iw5wE=ODPfDcJhZv7LmTxvi7FOT1seCU87YA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:04:47 +0100 Chris Rees wrote: > On 29 May 2013 07:13, "Matthew Seaman" <matthew@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Right. The fact that on very rare occasions a minute may not have > > 60 seconds in it plus many other corner cases in calculating the > > current wall-clock time is an amusing irrelevance. > > And in any case where you cared about the leap second, you would probably care that sleep doesn't wake-up on a second boundary, and can end-up in the next second. > OK, but is this really something the OS should handle? I'm sure sleep > `expr 3600 \* 2` will suffice and is perfectly readable, including > being more portable. +1
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130529151316.74797552>