The gnulib usleep replacement says
/* This file is _intentionally_ light-weight. Rather than using
select or nanosleep, both of which drag in external libraries on
some platforms, this merely rounds up to the nearest second if
usleep() does not exist. If sub-second resolution is important,
then use a more powerful interface to begin with. */
And the code confirms it
int
usleep (useconds_t micro)
{
unsigned int seconds = micro / 1000000;
if (sizeof seconds < sizeof micro && micro / 1000000 != seconds)
{
errno = EINVAL;
return -1;
}
if (!HAVE_USLEEP && micro % 1000000)
seconds++;
while ((seconds = sleep (seconds)) != 0);
#undef usleep
#if !HAVE_USLEEP
# define usleep(x) 0
#endif
return usleep (micro % 1000000);
}
The 'sleep' replacement on Win32 calls into the Win32-specific Sleep()
function which allows milli-second granularity. Why doesn't usleep()
call into Sleep() directly, so it gets milli-second granularity rather
than rounding up to the nearest second ?
In libvirt at least, we intentionally use usleep() over sleep() because
we really do want sub-second granularity, which makes gnulib's usleep
replacement rather unhelpful :-( I'd venture to suggest that the majority
of apps using usleep only need milli-second granularity, so an impl that
used Sleep() on Win32 would be pretty spot-on.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
