This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFC v1 01/16] sysdeps/nanosleep: Use clock_nanosleep_time64 instead of nanosleep

From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
To: Alistair Francis <alistair dot francis at wdc dot com>
Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, alistair23 at gmail dot com
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 08:34:33 +0200
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 01/16] sysdeps/nanosleep: Use clock_nanosleep_time64 instead of nanosleep
References: <cover.1561177967.git.alistair.francis@wdc.com> <cf7ecd7aa844bf65b1f1426f8a2153c78ee72281.1561177967.git.alistair.francis@wdc.com>

* Alistair Francis:

> +2019-06-21  Alistair Francis  <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
> +
> +	* nptl/thrd_sleep.c: Use clock_nanosleep_time64 instead of nanosleep.
> +	* sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/nanosleep.c: Likewise.
> +	* sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/nanosleep_nocancel.c: Likewise.

Sorry, how is this supposed to work for all the other architectures
which don't have this system call with current kernel versions?

Thanks,
Florian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC v1 01/16] sysdeps/nanosleep: Use clock_nanosleep_time64 instead of nanosleep
  - From: Alistair Francis

References:
- [RFC v1 00/16] RISC-V glibc port for the 32-bit
  - From: Alistair Francis
- [RFC v1 01/16] sysdeps/nanosleep: Use clock_nanosleep_time64 instead of nanosleep
  - From: Alistair Francis

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]