Pádraig Brady wrote:
> > m...@ita1bbx40,d1r17733u07 | strace -e nanosleep sleep 9999999999
> > nanosleep({9999999999, 0}, NULL) = 0
Just out of curiosity, what's wrong with nanosleep({9999999999, 0} ?
The first argument should be time_t, which should not be prone to
something stupid like overflowing at 2 (or 4) billion or so.
Michal Svoboda
