[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#9101: timeout should use setitimer if available
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
bug#9101: timeout should use setitimer if available |
Date: |
Sun, 17 Jul 2011 11:59:00 +0200 |
Paul Eggert wrote:
> setitimer has nanosecond resolution, which is better than the
> one-second resolution that 'alarm' has. timeout should use
> setitimer if available, to take advantage of this. On 64-bit
> hosts, this has the additional advantage of increasing the
> upper bound for timeouts from 2**31 seconds to 2**63 seconds
> (about 68 years to about 292 billion years, which should be
> long enough for most practical purposes :-).
I like the idea of supporting a sub-second timeout interval, but it
probably deserves a warning in the documentation. Even a command like
"timeout 3 sleep 1" will timeout on a system under heavy load.
- bug#9101: timeout should use setitimer if available, Paul Eggert, 2011/07/16
- bug#9101: timeout should use setitimer if available,
Jim Meyering <=
- bug#9101: timeout should use setitimer if available, Pádraig Brady, 2011/07/18
- bug#9101: timeout should use setitimer if available, Paul Eggert, 2011/07/18
- bug#9101: timeout should use setitimer if available, Pádraig Brady, 2011/07/18
- bug#9101: timeout should use setitimer if available, Paul Eggert, 2011/07/18
- bug#9101: timeout should use setitimer if available, Pádraig Brady, 2011/07/19
- bug#9101: timeout should use setitimer if available, Paul Eggert, 2011/07/19
- bug#9101: timeout should use setitimer if available, Pádraig Brady, 2011/07/19
- bug#9101: timeout should use setitimer if available, Paul Eggert, 2011/07/19
- bug#9101: timeout should use setitimer if available, SciFi, 2011/07/19