Re: Possible bug with nanosleep()?
Re: Possible bug with nanosleep()?
- Subject: Re: Possible bug with nanosleep()?
- From: Terry Lambert <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 01:40:06 -0800
On Mar 2, 2010, at 12:59 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
I agree, this is not a real-time application. What I meant is that
I'd really prefer it if my nanosleep was not interrupted by signals,
and if it is, I just want to sleep again until the appointed time. I
don't want to mess about with signal masks as nanosleep might (now
or in future) be internally implemented using signals on some
platforms (I've seen this with sleep()).
FWIW: To this specific question, POSIX requires that nanosleep() be
non-intrusive of the signals function, so you are guaranteed that it
will not be internally implemented that way on any POSIX compliant
platform; see paragraph 2 of the Rationale section at:
<http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/nanosleep.html>
Oh, and please report the bug (per my previous email); can't fix it if
it isn't reported!
-- Terry
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-kernel mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden