In message <Pine.GSO.4.43.0508021007350.5408-100000_at_sea.ntplx.net>, Daniel Eisc hen writes: >Hmm, the same could be said for sleep() in libc also, but we jump >through hoops to allow the thread libraries override sleep() with >their own cancellable version. I think this is in case libc wants >to use sleep(), usleep(), nanosleep() internally and not introduce >cancellation points into functions that shouldn't have them. usleep() calls _nanosleep() but I wonder if it shouldn't be redirected into the thead libraraies like sleep/nanosleep ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.Received on Tue Aug 02 2005 - 12:17:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:40 UTC