Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 14:35:13 +0100, wrote: > On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 14:23 +0100, Richard Braun wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:16:17PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 12:20:18 +0100, wrote: > > > > Why, because it doesn't have a sleep statement? > > > > > > I was referring to strict logic: it's not just because it happens to > > > > Also, using sleep for synchronization is always wrong. > > Dear Richard and Samuel, I know using sleep is considered bad! Please tell me > how the test code should be written to wait for the acknowledgement from the > receiver.
Well, I thought it'd be obvious: make the receiver send a packet, that the sender will wait for before exiting. A sort of acknowledgement. Samuel
