RE: nanosleep.c & winsock.h (was Re: Windows Build Broken - Feature Branch)

[Conrad T. Pino]

Hi Derek,

> From: Derek Robert Price
> 
> Well, it does when the maintainers don't have the time, inclination,
> or resources necessary to fix it.  ... :)

Yes, *now* I'm told *long* after I've put my foot in the trap!!! :)

> Unless, of course, someone else
> picks up the ball.  You never know with open source. ... :)

Does that mean I'm not the only dunce that sprang the trap? :)

> If you were
> paying us to maintain CVS, we might be obligated to fix the problems
> you report.  :)

And all this time I thought we were here for the glory!!! :)

> Yes.  I think I'm leaning towards a nanosleep macro as suggested by
> Shaun Tancheff or simply implementing nanoslep in woe32.c, as you
> suggested earlier.  I just wanted to feel I'd exhausted the other
> possibilities first.

Since you didn't say "yes" my dual option proposal, I won't bug the GNULIB
folk unless we agree otherwise.  We view the "woe32.c" stuff as cruft and
I'm willing to view it as temporary bridge to a better solution.

> >Since the "usleep" question posed to Jim Meyering was aborted abruptly
> >and without consultation I fail to see an incentive to participate but
> >perhaps that was unintended.  
> 
> It was.  I believe I mentioned usleep to you again for lack of  my own
> sleep...  I jumped in when I saw you had brought it up on bug-gnulib
> and I remembered that it wasn't really an option.

Hmmm... "it wasn't really an option" is making a distinction I'm not
getting.  To me, "usleep" in "woe32.c 1.2" is equivalent the Shaun's
suggestion:

int usleep(unsigned long useconds)
{
    /* Not very accurate, but it gets the job done */
    Sleep(useconds/1000 + (useconds%1000 ? 1 : 0));
    return 0;
}

Now I'm ignoring the *actual* resolution issue because that's an IA32
(i386) issue and not Windows specific.  What am I missing?

Minor matter:  How about making "my_usleep" static?

> I agree, but I tend to be the de facto Windows maintainer and I'd
> rather not be since I don't have the time.  As such, I prefer general
> solutions, as I've explained.

Sometimes stepping away creates a vacuum that draws another in.  Worked
with this sucker it did!!! :)

> >This looks like a delegation opportunity to me.
> 
> Good luck.  Send $$ or patches.  :)

Hmmm... How may $$ digits are we talking here? :)
        And how much for your soul? :)

> Derek

Conrad