On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 at 08:49, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11 October 2018 23:36:15 CEST, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > > >But I'm assuming that systems with no usleep are probably rare, and > >can live with rounding up to sleep for a full second. > > Well conforming implementations usually won't have usleep which was > obscolencent in SUSv3 and removed from SUSv4. > As you certainly know we have clock_nanosleep / nanosleep nowadays.
Yes, of course. We don't even look for usleep unless nanosleep isn't available, so I mean systems with no nanosleep *and* no usleep.
