Re: [Rosegarden-user] more problems with nanosleep

[Nicolas F. <nic...@wa...>]

Chris Cannam wrote:

>On Thursday 04 Mar 2004 9:32 am, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
>  
>
>>Second, before resorting to such hacks, you should try to
>>understand why including time.h doesn't work. 
>>    
>>
>
>Actually I suspect that nanosleep may be a newer addition to glibc 
>than its man page lets on.
>
>The only reason we're using it is that the usleep man page says usleep 
>is deprecated in favour of nanosleep.  We don't need the extra 
>resolution of nanosleep, and on Linux it doesn't actually give us the 
>extra theoretical resolution anyway.
>
>So I suggest we return to usleep.  Here's the change, for anyone 
>needing to fix this themselves: look for the function 
>SoundDriver::sleep() in sound/SoundDriver.cpp, and replace it with
>
>void
>SoundDriver::sleep(const RealTime &rt)
>{
>    unsigned long usec = rt.sec * 1000000 + rt.usec();
>    usleep(usec);
>}
>
>I'll apply this in CVS too.
>
>
>Chris
>  
>
Thanks I'll do that for now. But I don't understand why nanosleep is 
unresolved whereas when I use nm on libc here is what
I get :

$ nm /lib/libc.so.6 |grep nano
000a6340 T __libc_nanosleep
000a6340 W nanosleep
000a6340 t __nanosleep

so nanosleep is there isn't it ?
I am a newbie in programming so sorry if my question is stupid.
Nicolas.