Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:10:24 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: ache@nagual.pp.ru (=?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?=) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, xaa@stack.nl, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, denny1@home.com Subject: Re: wish /bin/sleep handled fractions of a second. Message-ID: <199710130010.RAA02387@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971013015447.7593A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net> from "=?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?=" at Oct 13, 97 01:58:10 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Yes. I prefer that someone else fix the man page after this patch is > > committed. > > You broke /bin/sleep POSIXness with your patch (for .* fraction). Read > about different sleep and usleep calls signal reaction. sleep supposed to > exit immediately (POSIX requirement) while usleep not (traditional BSD). > We need to fix usleep to do the same as sleep first to not break > /bin/sleep It's usleep that's broken, it's usleep that needs fixed, IMO. A fixed usleep is the most correct action. Note that it only inconveniences people who use the non-POSIX extension, yet expect POSIX behaviour. I can live with tha until usleep is fixed. Probably the patch should be committed and a PR submitted against usleep() for not following POLA with regard to how it acts relative to other members of its immediate family (ie: sleep()). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710130010.RAA02387>