Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!tank!cps3xx!usenet
From: usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Lattice C 5.04 bug
Message-ID: <5757@cps3xx.UUCP>
Date: 11 Dec 89 22:33:55 GMT
References: <828@wet.UUCP> <12147@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> <cZV0fcW00UkaMGMmR0@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: porkka@frith.UUCP (Joe Porkka)
Organization: Michigan State University
Lines: 27

>> From article <828@wet.UUCP>, by mcw@wet.UUCP (Martin Warnett):
>> work right before being faster makes a difference...

Especially in a "PLease waste some time" function :-)

>
>I was under the impression that "Delay" was a pretty nasty thing to use, that
>it stopped the whole system dead while it was delaying or something.
>Whatever the reason, I remember seeing posts to the effect of "Don't use
>Delay."  Anyone remember why?

Yes. Bad things happen to the nearest filesystem if you  do a Delay(0);
This is a bug in the timer.device i believe, something about
it having trouble with very short intervals.

You get the same effect with WaitForChar(handle,0);


So, sllep really ought to be:
sleep(n)
         unsigned n;
 {
	 if(n==0 || n>(MAXINT/60) ) return; /* No delay, and too big
					       delays are bad things */
         Delay (60*n);
 }
 Joe Porkka   porkka@frith.egr.msu.edu