[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: usleep
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: usleep |
Date: |
Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:35:46 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
Eric Blake <address@hidden> 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’t it something
usually avoided in Gnulib? (I’m asking because I don’t know what the
policy is and I was assuming Gnulib code to be C89.)
Thanks,
Ludo’.
- Re: pending patches?, Eric Blake, 2009/11/13
- Re: pending patches?, Eric Blake, 2009/11/13
- Re: pending patches?, Pádraig Brady, 2009/11/13
- Re: pending patches?, Jim Meyering, 2009/11/14
- Re: pending patches?, Eric Blake, 2009/11/14
- usleep (was: pending patches?), Eric Blake, 2009/11/18
- Re: usleep (was: pending patches?), Eric Blake, 2009/11/18
- Re: usleep,
Ludovic Courtès <=
- Re: usleep, Eric Blake, 2009/11/18
- Re: usleep, Eric Blake, 2009/11/19
- Re: usleep, Eric Blake, 2009/11/20
- Re: pending patches?, Eric Blake, 2009/11/14
- OpenBSD chown (was: pending patches?), Eric Blake, 2009/11/17
- Re: OpenBSD chown, Eric Blake, 2009/11/18