Subject: bug#7359: sleep 9999999999

From: Pádraig Brady <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:13:21 +0000

On 11/11/10 07:21, Michal Svoboda wrote:
> 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.

Nothing is wrong with it, except that it trips
up that old 64 bit linux kernel.

cheers,
Pádraig.