* Mikhail Teterin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000124 12:35] wrote:
> David Schwartz once wrote:
>
> > The man page is correct and the implementation is correct.
>
> Several people, said the man pages are broken:
>
> Bruce Evans on Dec 28:
> > If timeout is a non-nil pointer, it specifies
> > a maximum interval to wait for the selection
> > to complete.
>
> This is a bug in the man page. It is so poorly
> worded that it is broken. "maximum" here means
> "minimum" in the case where no selected event
> occurs.
>
> Daniel Eischen on Jan 23:
> You have to guarantee that the actual time is
> greater than or equal to the amount of time
> specified.
>
> Warner Losh on Jan 23:
> : Could you provide the chapter/verse number of
> : where POSIX spec contradicts the man pages? It
> : will help me make my case on the TCL forum,
> : since the TCL developers remain under the
> : mistaken assumption, that select() may return
> : earlier, but never later than specified.
>
> Somewhere in the archives have a pointer to the
> unified unix spec for select. Might want to look
> for it. A useful regular expression might be
> http://www.*/select.*.
>
> This is becoming ridiculous. Somehow, I get a feeling a bunch of people
> manage to agree with each other on a subject they express exactly
> opposite opinions.
The manpage has been updated in -current:
If timeout is a non-nil pointer, it specifies the maximum interval to
wait for the selection to complete. System activity can lengthen the in-
terval by an indeterminate amount.
If timeout is a nil pointer, the select blocks indefinitely.
To effect a poll, the timeout argument should be non-nil, pointing to a
zero-valued timeval structure.
If no one objects I'll be committing it to -stable and praying to the
gods that this thread dies.
-Alfred
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
