Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:08:57 +1030 (CST) From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: Ken Bolingbroke <hacker@bolingbroke.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Steffen Merkel <d_f0rce@gmx.de> Subject: Re: Sorry, but another thread problem! Message-ID: <XFMail.991230110857.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9912291210510.64465-100000@fremont.bolingbroke.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29-Dec-99 Ken Bolingbroke wrote: > From my own experience, altho I'm not that skilled a programmer, > sleep() > is not thread-safe. I believe sleep() sets a global SIGALARM, which > is > reset by every thread that calls it, and thus only the last one ever > returns. Replacing sleep() with nanosleep() or something else that > is > thread-safe should solve that problem. Stupid question time.. If that is so why doesn't sleep just use nanosleep? :) --- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.991230110857.doconnor>