Re: xnanosleep range with 64 bit time_t

[Paul Eggert]

Frank v Waveren <address@hidden> writes:

>>      unsigned int eons = t.tv_sec >> 31;
>>      for (i = 0; i < eons; i++)
>>        sleep for 2**31 seconds;
>>      t.tv_sec &= 0x7FFFFFFF;
> Yeah, I was being lazy. There seems to be a little trouble with the
> sleep-as-long-as-we-can patch anyway, I'll see if this isn't too tricky
> to hack up and try submitting it.

Thanks.  Please let us know how it turns out; if nanosleep can fail
with EOVERFLOW we'll have to recode things again to work around that
problem.  (I hope it doesn't come to that....)