This is a lot of fuss. How many bugs have you found relating to this issue?
Let me guess: zero? Scott Cheloha <scottchel...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 08:15:34AM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 10:39:49PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote: > > > Okay, the nanosleep.2 changes are committed, let's do sleep.3 next. > > > > hi. > > > > the changes read fine to me. only one comment: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > STANDARDS > > > > > > - Bump the relevant standard to POSIX.1-2001. That version > > > incorporates details about threads, which our version respects. > > > > > > For sake of completeness, I will note that SUSv2 mentions threads > > > too: > > > > > > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/sleep.html > > > > > > SUSv2 is older than POSIX.1-2001. Do we prefer the earlier > > > standard? > > > > > > > no, we tend to reference the latest spec. > > So, should I just say we conform to POSIX.1-2008? > > There were no changes to the sleep() spec in that edition relevant to > our implementation. If sleep() is based on nanosleep() the spec > hasn't changed in any meaningful way since 2001. All the changes > since then are about the SIGALRM approach, which seems to be on its > way out. >
