Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 17:53:52 +0200 From: Graham Wheeler <gram@cdsec.com> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using select() to implement a delay Message-ID: <371CA30F.6F84565B@cdsec.com> References: <199904201316.PAA23736@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > > I have an interesting problem. I have a routine to implement delays: > ... > > > I am using this both because it gives better resolution than sleep(), > > > and also because it doesn't require the use of SIGALRM, which I am > > > using elsewhere. > > > > Do you have any reasons not to use usleep(3) or nanosleep(2)? > > portability to other unixes... As well as the fact that usleep uses signals. I am trying to avoid using signals, as there is a Timer C++ class in the same library which implements timeouts for system calls using SIGALRM (and a SignalHandler class), and I want to be able to use the Timer class in the same code as the Sleep routine should the need arise. -- Dr Graham Wheeler E-mail: gram@cdsec.com Citadel Data Security Phone: +27(21)423-6065/6/7 Firewalls/Virtual Private Networks Fax: +27(21)24-3656 Internet/Intranet Network Specialists Data Security Products WWW: http://www.cdsec.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?371CA30F.6F84565B>