On Thursday 20 August 2009 22:49:30 Daniel Mierswa wrote: > On 20.08.2009 16:14, Karel Zak wrote: > > I've committed the patch below. The patch uses usleep(1) rather than > > nanosleep() with 1 nanosecond. It would be better to remove the sleep > > at all, but I don't have Amiga with A2000 RTCs to test that the > > workaround is unnecessary... > > Heh my initial patch wanted to _remove_ usleep, not use it. :-) > Shall i re-send a patch that converts the usleep() calls to nanosleep() > or am I a lost cause now? i dont think Karel's change makes any difference to the original intention. you're still transparently redirecting usleep() to nanosleep(). -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
