On 17/07/15 04:21, Peter Bray wrote: > On 16/07/15 05:56 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> for i in $(seq 20); do time gtimeout 2.34e+5d sleep inf; done > > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.015 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.009 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > gtimeout 2.34e+5d gsleep inf 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.010 total > > Sorry, I didn't make that clear, when the command works (like it does > mostly on 64-bit on 64-bit systems, as I poorly conveyed in the last > post) it never returns and it returns "immediately" on the failure, > which (as the above shows) was 20 out of 20 test cases.
Is there ever a failure with non maximal values? For example is there ever an early return with: while true; do time gtimeout 0.1 sleep inf; test $? != 124 && break; done I'm guessing not, and the kernel is having rounding issues? Do you still get the problem if you change the clock in timeout.c from CLOCK_REALTIME to say CLOCK_MONOTONIC? cheers, Pádraig.
