apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/test testsleep.c
Date Wed, 02 Jan 2002 23:18:17 GMT
The reason for the extra is that we measure in calls that will add time to
the sleep, hence the time measured is unlikely to be less...

david

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Bannert" <aaron@clove.org>
To: <dev@apr.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apr/test testsleep.c


> On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 10:47:56PM -0000, jerenkrantz@apache.org wrote:
> > jerenkrantz    02/01/02 14:47:56
> >
> >   Modified:    test     testsleep.c
> >   Log:
> >   Add stdlib.h for exit.
> >   Print out the time information if we fail.  On my Linux SMP box, we
> >   sleep for less than the time requested.  Is this permissible?  (I'd
> >   suggest doing 0.99*interval<->1.01*interval.)
>
> Usually sleep timeouts are considered upper limits, as well as the fact
> that in many implementations it is possible to return early if interrupted
> by a signal.
>
> +1 for checking the range [0.99, 1.01]*interval.
>
> -aaron
>


Mime
View raw message