On (2002/11/12 16:37), Nate Lawson wrote:
I've found an interesting contradiction and was wondering what behavior
sleep should have. It checks for a command line flag with getopt(3) and
exits with usage() if it finds one. However, it then checks for a '-' or
'+' sign. If negative, it
Sheldon Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think it's pretty clear that negative time arguments to sleep(1) are
not portable.
I have, somewhere in my big bag of tricks, an unfinished patch which
would allow us to implement negative sleep times by directing the PSU
to emit positrons instead of
On (2002/11/13 15:06), Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
I think it's pretty clear that negative time arguments to sleep(1) are
not portable.
I have, somewhere in my big bag of tricks, an unfinished patch which
would allow us to implement negative sleep times by directing the PSU
to emit
Sheldon Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the love of dog, whatever you do, just please make sure it works
when kern.turbo is not set. It's all very well adding new features,
but you need to consider folks who're still using perfectly legitimate
legacy configurations.
Don't worry, I'll
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:07:22 -0800 (PST), Nate Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Thanks, that's what I was expecting. The attached patch provides the
following behavior:
sleep 0 = exit 0 immediately
sleep [ \t]*1 = sleep 1 second
sleep [ \t]*\.2zzz = sleep .2 seconds
sleep [ \t]*-.* =
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:07:22 -0800 (PST), Nate Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Thanks, that's what I was expecting. The attached patch provides the
following behavior:
sleep 0 = exit 0 immediately
sleep [ \t]*1 = sleep 1 second
sleep [
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:26:44 -0800 (PST), Nate Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
So sleep -1 should sleep for ~0UL seconds? And should usage() ever be
called then?
Well, the standard says that anything might happen as a result of
`sleep -- -1'. I'm just pointing out why the standard says so.
I've found an interesting contradiction and was wondering what behavior
sleep should have. It checks for a command line flag with getopt(3) and
exits with usage() if it finds one. However, it then checks for a '-' or
'+' sign. If negative, it behaves like sleep 0 and exits
immediately. This
* De: Nate Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-11-12 ]
[ Subjecte: sleep(1) behavior ]
I've found an interesting contradiction and was wondering what behavior
sleep should have. It checks for a command line flag with getopt(3) and
exits with usage() if it finds one. However
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Juli Mallett wrote:
* De: Nate Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-11-12 ]
[ Subjecte: sleep(1) behavior ]
I've found an interesting contradiction and was wondering what behavior
sleep should have. It checks for a command line flag with getopt(3) and
exits
10 matches
Mail list logo
