Subject: bug#7359: sleep 9999999999

From: Michal Svoboda <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:21:17 +0100

Pádraig Brady wrote:
> > matt@ita1bbx40,d1r17733u07 | strace -e nanosleep sleep 9999999999
> > nanosleep({9999999999, 0}, NULL)        = 0

Just out of curiosity, what's wrong with nanosleep({9999999999, 0} ?

The first argument should be time_t, which should not be prone to
something stupid like overflowing at 2 (or 4) billion or so.

Michal Svoboda