On Friday 21 August 2009 00:37:45 Daniel Mierswa wrote: > On 21.08.2009 05:38, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i dont think Karel's change makes any difference to the original > > intention. you're still transparently redirecting usleep() to > > nanosleep(). > > So does an updated patch that implements usleep via nanosleep or uses > usleep if it exists stand a chance to get accepted? If so, how would you > want the situation to be solved, as you already stated a static usleep > could likely conflict with the one provided by POSIX. I still think a > macro would be fine. your last patch (updated to reflect Karel's changes) is the way to go imo, but i'm not Karel (i.e. i'm not the one committing) -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
