Hi Regid, 2011/10/3 Stuart D Gathman <[email protected]>: > On 10/03/2011 01:02 PM, Regid Ichira wrote: >> - usleep(250000); >> + struct timespec delay = {0, 250e6}; nanosleep(&delay, NULL); >> > Would it be better to define a local version of usleep in terms of > nanosleep? I suspect the library version already does that, but if the > library version is going away, a local version is much more concise and > readable than calling nanosleep directly. If there are concerns about > linking, the local version could be, e.g, u_sleep, since all the calls > are getting touched anyway.
sorry, but Stuart is right. I should have replied to your other (well, this one) report on this. Using AC_REPLACE_FUNCS(... usleep ...) in configure.in and providing a common/usleep.c->usleep() replacement implementation, in case the system doesn't provide it, is a better way to go. At least for now. That way, we avoid regression, while supporting systems that do not provide usleep. thanks for your appreciated work Regid! cheers, Arnaud _______________________________________________ Nut-upsdev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
