New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Shouldn't unix/sleep.c use clock_nanosleep (if available) instead of nanosleep? #7802
Comments
Comment author: @nojb What would be the benefit of switching to clock_nanosleep? |
Comment author: berenger Better precision in some specific cases.
|
Comment author: @nojb Thanks. Have you come across an actual situation where the current implementation is problematic or is this request about a potential problem? Personally I am not familiar with the signal handling code, so I can't say whether this change is worth it or not, but feel free to open a PR if you would like to get wider feedback on this proposal. |
Comment author: berenger I am worried about the potential problem. |
This issue has been open one year with no activity. Consequently, it is being marked with the "stale" label. What this means is that the issue will be automatically closed in 30 days unless more comments are added or the "stale" label is removed. Comments that provide new information on the issue are especially welcome: is it still reproducible? did it appear in other contexts? how critical is it? etc. |
Original bug ID: 7802
Reporter: berenger
Status: new
Resolution: open
Priority: normal
Severity: feature
Platform: unix-like
Category: standard library
Monitored by: @nojb
Bug description
If deemed useful, I can send a patch.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: