Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:31155 comp.unix.wizards:25495
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!think.com!hsdndev!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: talk session
Message-ID: <8662:May914:21:3891@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 9 May 91 14:21:38 GMT
References: <1991May7.084631.10183@prl.dec.com> <1991May7.102219.25557@ssd.kodak.com> <1991May8.194940.13610@watson.ibm.com>
Organization: IR
Lines: 14

In article <1991May8.194940.13610@watson.ibm.com> metzger@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
> >|> > 		for (i = 0; i < delay; i++)
> >|> > 			;
> Really, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for busy waiting on a
> timesharing system.

There would be if you had a really, really smart compiler that detected
loops of the above form, timed 100 runs to see how long each loop took,
and stuck in an appropriate usleep() or select() or nap() or poll() for
that machine.

:-)

---Dan