Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 09:58:46 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Cc: kaleb@x.org, terry@lambert.org, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Forgiving select() call. Message-ID: <199605281658.JAA11239@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199605280612.IAA03466@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at May 28, 96 08:12:17 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> (Religious topic, thus moved to chat.) > > As Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: > > > And, FWIW, SVR4 select(3) is implemented using poll(2), so select on > > SVR4, in and of itself, isn't going to have any better granularity > > than poll. > > Only very few systems actually implement it as a library function (and > that's perhaps one of the reasons [along with STREAMS] for the > sluggishness of their IP functionality). All the serious ones > implement it as a system call, too. Solaris as of 2.3 implementes it as a system call. I pointed out two bugs in the library implementation: 1) Won't run statically linked SunOS binaries 2) Makes OS non-compliant with SVID III (RT) definition for select(), since SVID III makes a distinction between system clock and clock update frequency (setitimer(RT), getitimer(RT), gettimeofday(RT)). Pretty much only silly non-SVID III compliant SVR3/SVR4 implementations use select(3) instead of select(2) implementations. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605281658.JAA11239>