On Fri, 27 May 2011, Jindřich Makovička wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 15:27, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Well, maybe you want to update your patch to address the other
> > occurrences of usleep and replace them all?
>
> Sounds reasonable. Also updated the change rationale.
While this makes sense for POSIX, non-POSIX systems only implementing
commonly used functions might not have nanosleep. Windows (neither via
mingw32 nor mingw64) doesn't seem to have nanosleep. If we go for this, we
need a fallback for such systems.
// Martin
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
