Subject: bug#9102: "timeout 0 FOO" should timeout right away

From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:27:55 -0700

On 07/16/11 15:08, Alan Curry wrote:
> What's the difference between running a command with a 0 second timeout
> and not running the command at all? It could be killed before it even gets
> scheduled.

Yes, exactly.  "timeout 0 FOO" should be the limit case for

timeout 1 FOO
timeout 0.1 FOO
timeout 0.01 FOO
timeout 0.001 FOO

That is, its behavior shouldn't diverge markedly from that of
"timeout 1e-300 FOO".