Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpcc05!hpyhde4!hpycla!hpcuhc!hpcupt3!ken
From: ken@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com (Kenneth M. Sumrall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: usleep [Re: BSD and HPUX, The Questions Continue...]
Message-ID: <48580031@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com>
Date: 22 May 91 20:51:37 GMT
References: <2130012@aspen.IAG.HP.COM>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 30

>Sure they can, they just can't be linked. (Sorry, I'm just trying to
>live up to my snide reputation.) Here's a version of usleep I use: 
>
>#include <time.h>
>
>usleep (usecs)
>long  usecs;
>{
>    struct timeval timeout;
>
>    timeout.tv_sec = 0;  /* should be usecs / 1000000 */
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    timeout.tv_usec = usecs;  /* should be usecs % 1000000 */
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    select(0, 0, 0, 0, &timeout);
>}
>
Believe the two comments above.  If tv_usec is more than 1,000,000, and 
tv_sec is zero, their is no delay at all.  This is the behaviour I noticed
two releases ago when I was porting some code.  Of course, things
could have changed, but why risk it?

Hope this helps.

>			-- Chan Benson
>			HP Fort Collins
| Ken Sumrall                          |     Internet: ken%hpda@hplabs.hp.com |
| HP California Language Labs          |           UUCP:  ...!hplabs!hpda!ken |
|    "I'd stomp desert dope heads for some gas in my moped!" - Bill the Cat   |
|              "What a stupid world" -Calvin (speaking to Hobbes)             |