Excellent answer! I use a double for convenience as it's a simpler
interface than using a timespec struct.
nanoSleep(0.5); // sleep for half a second
On 2020-01-20 9:11 AM, retired mainframer wrote:
Since period is a double, it is reasonable to assume that it has a non-zero fractional part.
Thanks, Retired Mainframer, makes eminent sense now you explain it.
cheers,
Peter
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 17:11:57 -0800, retired mainframer
wrote:
>Since period is a double, it is reasonable to assume that it has a non-zero
>fractional part. When its value is stored in secs, the fractional part
Hi Folks,
I once wrote a package to audit tape differences between the IBM
3494 VTS and CA-1. It is on CBT Tape File 519. www.cbttape.org CBT
file. It converts the tape inventory of CA-1 and the VTS to a common
format, and compares them, reporting discrepancies. Hope it helps.
This s
Since period is a double, it is reasonable to assume that it has a non-zero
fractional part. When its value is stored in secs, the fractional part is
truncated (the entire value is converted to integer). So if period contained
5.12, sec will contain 5. When an arithmetic operator operates on
Hi David,
Thanks for sharing this snippet.
I'm not a C person, so I have a dumb question: how does the value of microSecs
not equal zero? From my naive view it would seem to be the difference between
two things that are the same, with period having been equated to secs in the
previous stat
Hi Folks,
I just wrote another article for the "system doctors" about how to
alter, cancel, or change the status of jobs, when necessary, and when
the IBM methods might not be working for you. It's nice to have a tool
in your pocket when you need it.
This article, together with the
The XLC compiler supports named operands in __asm blocks which are much
easier to understand.
/** Constant for TOD clock unit for a second */
static const uint64_t TOD_TIME_SEC = 0xF424LLU;
int nanoSleep(double period) {
int rc;
int secs = period;
double microSecs = period - secs;
u
