On 13 October 2018 12:56:14 CEST, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>Yes, of course. We don't even look for usleep unless nanosleep isn't
>available, so I mean systems with no nanosleep *and* no usleep.
Right. Wasn't obvious to me from just the patch. Sorry for the noise..
On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 at 08:49, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
>
> On 11 October 2018 23:36:15 CEST, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> >But I'm assuming that systems with no usleep are probably rare, and
> >can live with rounding up to sleep for a full second.
>
> Well conforming implementations usually
On 11 October 2018 23:36:15 CEST, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>But I'm assuming that systems with no usleep are probably rare, and
>can live with rounding up to sleep for a full second.
Well conforming implementations usually won't have usleep which was
obscolencent in SUSv3 and removed from SUSv4.
On 11/10/18 17:37 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Avoid a system call when no sleep is required. Sleep in a loop (actually
two loops) to handle interruption by signals.
PR libstdc++/80538
* src/c++11/thread.cc (this_thread::__sleep_for)
[_GLIBCXX_HAVE_SLEEP]: Only call slee
Avoid a system call when no sleep is required. Sleep in a loop (actually
two loops) to handle interruption by signals.
PR libstdc++/80538
* src/c++11/thread.cc (this_thread::__sleep_for)
[_GLIBCXX_HAVE_SLEEP]: Only call sleep for non-zero values.
Loop while sleep c
