Jim Meyering wrote: > You're welcome to commit that. Committed. The only thing I'm worried about is that it's a compromise between precision of the time interval and ues of CPU time: Someone who invokes nanosleep with an argument of 0.3 seconds may complain that 9.4 ms of busy-looping is not acceptable and that - in his application - sleeping 0.29 or 0.31 s would be more acceptable than burning CPU time. But nanosleep does not take a "precision" argument...
Bruno
