2001 3:06 PM
>To: Wget List
>Subject: Re: windows patch and problem
>
>
>"Ian Abbott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 29 Nov 2001 at 12:48, Herold Heiko wrote:
>>
>>> --12:27:26-- http://www.cnn.com/
>>> (try: 3) => `www.cn
Herold Heiko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, fine. But, in order to avoid misunderstanding, wouldn't it be
> better to have a wrapper function (msleep ?) and use that where
> really millisecond granularity is desired ? Otherwise sooner or
> later somebody could use usleep where really microseco
TALY
>-Original Message-
>From: Hrvoje Niksic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 3:09 PM
>To: Wget List
>Subject: Re: windows patch and problem
>
>
>Herold Heiko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> * cmpt.c: provided usleep
Herold Heiko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * cmpt.c: provided usleep somewhat-emulation
Note that your emulation is perfectly fine not only because usleep()
is currently called with multiples of thousand, but also because Wget
doesn't *really* depend on microsecond granularity of usleep,
"Ian Abbott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 29 Nov 2001 at 12:48, Herold Heiko wrote:
>
>> --12:27:26-- http://www.cnn.com/
>> (try: 3) => `www.cnn.com/index.html'
>> Found www.cnn.com in host_name_addresses_map (008D01B0)
>> Releasing 008D01B0 (new refcount 1).
>> Retrying.
>>
>> (ecc.)
>
On 29 Nov 2001 at 12:48, Herold Heiko wrote:
> --12:27:26-- http://www.cnn.com/
> (try: 3) => `www.cnn.com/index.html'
> Found www.cnn.com in host_name_addresses_map (008D01B0)
> Releasing 008D01B0 (new refcount 1).
> Retrying.
>
> (ecc.)
> Same with other hosts
>
> Could somebody please con