If you look at the manual pages for nanosleep, clock_nanosleep and others on Linux you'll see that they have many bits of advice, BUGS notes, and other statements to the effect that the standard things do not work well, and most need some sort of real-time support to do anything sensible. An earlier variant did a busy wait when needed (which is unsurprising, but assumes processor wiring, and no scheduling away from the process).
On 28 November 2012 19:27, David Arnold <[email protected]> wrote: > Is POSIX' nanosleep() or old-POSIX/BSD/XOpen's usleep() out of the question?
