rolff@mosh.UUCP (Anders Rolff) (12/20/89)
peter@sersun1.essex.ac.uk (Allott P) writes: >>But what if you want to sleep for less than one second, say, 0.5? >It is possible to "sleep" for less than one second by doing a >selcect(.......) with an appropriate value in the timeval (5th param I think) >and with no channels to check (2nd through 4th params I think). In SunOS there's a usleep() that sleeps in milliseconds. --Anders
dskim@eng.umd.edu (Daeshik Kim) (12/28/89)
In article <107@mosh.UUCP> rolff@mosh.UUCP (Anders Rolff) writes: >peter@sersun1.essex.ac.uk (Allott P) writes: > >>selcect(.......) with an appropriate value in the timeval (5th param I think) Why not 'setitimer' ? -- Daeshik Kim H: (301) 445-0475/2147 O: (703) 689-7308 (M,W,F) SCHOOL: dkim@cscwam.umd.edu (uunet!haven!cscwam.umd.edu!dkim) dskim@eng.umd.edu (uunet!haven!eng.umd.edu!dskim) WORK: dkim@daffy.uu.net (uunet!daffy!dkim)
chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) (12/29/89)
(This is not C, but rather Unix; followups redirected there.) >In article <107@mosh.UUCP> rolff@mosh.UUCP (Anders Rolff) writes: >>>select(...) with an appropriate value in the timeval In article <1989Dec28.091551.17731@eng.umd.edu> dskim@eng.umd.edu (Daeshik Kim) writes: >Why not 'setitimer' ? select() is simpler. To use setitimer(ITIMER_REAL) properly, you have to do much more work. (If you use it improperly, your program will eventually fail.) The only disadvantage to select over setitimer(ITIMER_REAL) is that it is interrupted by signals. This may be an advantage in some cases. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@cs.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris