Scott Cheloha <[email protected]> wrote: > Given this, I want to tell the reader, roughly: > > "hey! it's plausible there is a SIGALRM-based sleep() implementation > using still floating around out there in the wild. If you find one, > you'll want to avoid using it because there are unfixable bugs in > such an implementation. Maybe use nanosleep() instead. If you *do* > use it, just know that it will behave differently from OpenBSD's > sleep() in some corner cases." > > But if you really think there is no point in mentioning that, and > others agree with you, then we won't mention it.
I don't think the manual pages need to be proscriptive about a concern which doesn't occur in the wild. Being proscriptive in OpenBSD manual pages isn't going to stop someone from creating the precise problem you describe in some other body of code. Except, you are saying they don't create that problem. So why foam at the mouth over it?
