On 11/11/10 07:21, Michal Svoboda wrote:
> 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.Nothing is wrong with it, except that it trips up that old 64 bit linux kernel. cheers, Pádraig.
