On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 07:35 +0200, Daniel Mierswa wrote: > On 19.08.2009 04:17, Kay Sievers wrote: > > What's the point doing that wrapping? Will usleep() ever be removed from glibc? > Well POSIX.1-2008 removes the specification and if you disable > UCLIBC_SUSV3_LEGACY in uClibc (which is default) you will get undefined > references. I don't think it's too big of a problem to replace it for > the cases where the C library doesn't offer it, is it? > Why not just use nanosleep() unconditionally? Scott -- Scott James Remnant scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
