Yup, that sounds better.
I'll put up a patch soon.
Cheers,
/ Asiri
On 7 Jan 2017 9:18 p.m., "Saleem Abdulrasool" wrote:
> I would really rather not introduce a `__libcpp_thread_nanosleep`.
> Different systems may have different granularities for their sleep. A
> `__libcpp_sleep_for(std::chro
I would really rather not introduce a `__libcpp_thread_nanosleep`.
Different systems may have different granularities for their sleep. A
`__libcpp_sleep_for(std::chrono::duration)` sounds reasonable however.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Asiri Rathnayake <
asiri.rathnay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Wouldn't it be better to introduce a __libcpp_thread_nanosleep() API call
here?
I bumped into a similar issue with a custom thread implementation and have
a downstream patch like that.
Cheers,
/ Asiri
On 7 Jan 2017 2:59 a.m., "Saleem Abdulrasool via cfe-commits" <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> w
