Path: csiph.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail From: L A Walsh Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug Subject: Re: Add sleep builtin Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 10:57:56 -0700 Lines: 37 Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <83513822-23BF-4695-9542-F967512A8A3D@gmail.com> <5B7CB832.4080004@tlinx.org> <20180822122211.2fgtiendc3h3p3cf@eeg.ccf.org> <20180825160259753625394@bob.proulx.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: usenet.stanford.edu 1535393025 15211 208.118.235.17 (27 Aug 2018 18:03:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: action@cs.stanford.edu To: bug-bash@gnu.org Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org User-Agent: Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <20180825160259753625394@bob.proulx.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x (no timestamps) [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 173.164.175.65 X-BeenThere: bug-bash@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:14540 On 8/25/2018 3:16 PM, Bob Proulx wrote: > Greg Wooledge wrote: > >> If true, that would actually violate POSIX. >> You might be remembering it wrong. Naw...just the marginalia that Bob mentions... > > I also remember that at one time the Unix sleep was implemented by > polling a second granularity clock register. If one was not lucky > then polling just before the second turned, and then just after, would > cause sleep to exit because the second had changed. A 1 second sleep > was 0-1 seconds. > > And certainly any using the fractional second extension is past any > need to worry about the problem. Because any such system with the > problem would only handle to a granularity of integer seconds anyway. > --- I'd hope such would be the case, but as soon as I'd expect such sane behavior, I'd run into a more simplistic implementation that met the letter if not intent of some requirement...so such things tend to stick in my head as possible, though not very useful implementations. I certainly would not take the ever-changing POSIX spec as a guide to what actually exists or is implemented in the field. POSIX moved away from their original mission statement of being "descriptive" to one that is "prescriptive" a long time ago, with "prescriptive" being based on the wants and desires of its current membership with little or no regard for usability or compatibility.