> In a CI run of libunistring (on GitHub), I see a test failure:
>
> ../../tests/test-usleep.c:35: assertion 'start < time (NULL)' failed
> FAIL test-usleep.exe (exit status: 134)
I'm seeing this test failure again. It's time to disable the test on Cygwin.
2024-06-08 Bruno Haible
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 11/18/2009 10:16 PM:
> At any rate, here's what I'm now testing, it has passed on cygwin, 64-bit
> Linux, and Solaris. The nanosleep code is a complete rewrite, and is
> actually lighter-weight (no need to use clock_gettime)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 11/18/2009 5:56 PM:
> Yep. I'll fix it in my respin. Besides, I found out that rpl_nanosleep
> needs the same bug fix, and not only that, but it has a logic bug - it
> ignores EINTR, forcing the sleep to last until a fatal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Ludovic Courtès on 11/18/2009 4:35 PM:
>> +{
>> + seconds -= limit;
>> + unsigned int result = sleep (limit);
>
> This declaration-after-statement is a C99 thing. Isn’t it something
> usually avoided in Gnulib?
Yep. I'll
Hi,
Eric Blake writes:
> +unsigned int
> +rpl_sleep (unsigned int seconds)
> +{
> + const unsigned int limit = 49 * 24 * 60 * 60;
> + while (limit < seconds)
> +{
> + seconds -= limit;
> + unsigned int result = sleep (limit);
This declaration-after-statement is a C99 thing. Isn
Eric Blake byu.net> writes:
> I'm pushing this. Most systems these days still support usleep, even
> though POSIX no longer requires it; even mingw has it; so the few
> platforms where this implementation rounds up to the ceiling of the next
> second should be rare (still correct behavior, just
