On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:39:04 +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > I would prefer the following patch. > > * Use the same wording up front as for ualarm(3). > It is relevant because alarm(3) and setitimer(ITIMER_REAL, ...) > cancel each other. Without that sentence, people might be misled > to think that they could use both to set independent alarms.
OK. > * There are so many cross references that the SEE ALSO section > looks confusing. Delete those that are not helpful: > > - The XSI sigpause(3) is less portable than the POSIX sigsuspend(3) > and only minimally easier to use. POSIX calls sigpause(3) > obsolescent, we call it obsolete. > - The obsolete function sigvec(3) isn't standardized and less > powerful than the POSIX sigaction(3). > - The former XSI usleep(3) is less portable than the POSIX nanosleep(3) > and only minimally easier to use. Current POSIX does not even > mention usleep(3) as an XSI extension. > - We could add nanosleep(3), but it differs from alarm(3) in two > respects: Different granularity and not implemented by signal > delivery, so it is not all that relevant, and it is linked > from sleep(3) anyway. OK. > * Update the POSIX reference while here. > > * Also delete the misleading comment from the source file. OK. I really just didn't want alarm(3) telling people to use setitimer(2) when POSIX has deprecated setitimer(2) in favor of the timer_settime(2) (which we don't support). Unlike setitimer(2), alarm(3) is set to remain in POSIX for the forseeable future. - todd
