Good wait function?

[ern]

Anybody know a good function that waits a specified amount of
milliseconds?

ie...

void Wait(int milliseconds){
//wait somehow
}

[Eric Sosman]

ern wrote On 09/27/05 17:15,:

Anybody know a good function that waits a specified amount of
milliseconds?

ie...

void Wait(int milliseconds){
//wait somehow
}

This is Question 19.37 in the comp.lang.c Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQ) list

http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html

--
Er*********@sun.com

[Michael Mair]

ern wrote:

Anybody know a good function that waits a specified amount of
milliseconds?

ie...

void Wait(int milliseconds){
//wait somehow
}

Define "good"...
If you mean "works on every platform/operating system/...", then
the answer is: There is none.
This is an area the C standard does not say much about. You
could try to abuse some of the functions prototyped in <time.h>
but this is not guaranteed to work.
It is even possible that your machine is not able to wait an
exactly specified amount of milliseconds because of, say, the
used multitasking modell.

See FAQ 19.37.

Ask in a newsgroup that deals with your platform/compiler/operating
system.
Cheers
Michael
--
E-Mail: Mine is an /at/ gmx /dot/ de address.

[ern]

I'm running Linux Red Hat, using gcc if anyone knows how to do it
there. Thanks.

[Keith Thompson]

"ern" <er*******@gmail.com> writes:

I'm running Linux Red Hat, using gcc if anyone knows how to do it
there. Thanks.

Michael Mair has already given you the best answer you're going to get
in this newsgroup:

] See FAQ 19.37.
]
] Ask in a newsgroup that deals with your platform/compiler/operating
] system.

Try comp.unix.programming or something with "linux" in its name.

Also, please provide context when posting a followup.

If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.

Since you're on groups.google.com, you can see just how many times
this advice has been posted here. If you had browsed the newsgroup
before posting, you would have seen it already.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[wilsonidv]

ern 寫�：

Anybody know a good function that waits a specified amount of
milliseconds?

ie...

void Wait(int milliseconds){
//wait somehow
}

try select().

[Flash Gordon]

wilsonidv wrote:

ern 寫�：

Anybody know a good function that waits a specified amount of
milliseconds?

ie...

void Wait(int milliseconds){
//wait somehow
}

try select().

That is not part of the C standard and so may well not be available on
the OPs system, or if it is available might do something completely
different such as sellecting the target for a missile. Since the OP does
not specify a system you have no way of knowing.

We only discuss standard C, discussion of system specifics belong on the
groups dedicated to the relevant system and should be redirected to such
groups.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Skarmander]

Flash Gordon wrote:

wilsonidv wrote:

ern 寫�：

Anybody know a good function that waits a specified amount of
milliseconds?

ie...

void Wait(int milliseconds){
//wait somehow
}

try select().

That is not part of the C standard and so may well not be available on
the OPs system, or if it is available might do something completely
different such as sellecting the target for a missile. Since the OP does
not specify a system you have no way of knowing.

We only discuss standard C, discussion of system specifics belong on the
groups dedicated to the relevant system and should be redirected to such
groups.

Quite right. He should have said "try select(), for POSIX systems".

S.

[Flash Gordon]

Skarmander wrote:

Flash Gordon wrote:

<snip>

We only discuss standard C, discussion of system specifics belong on
the groups dedicated to the relevant system and should be redirected
to such groups.

Quite right. He should have said "try select(), for POSIX systems".

Had he done, he should also have redirected the OP to an appropriate
group for further discussion and said that he was suggesting a system
specific solution because there is no solution within standard C.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Skarmander]

Flash Gordon wrote:

Skarmander wrote:

Flash Gordon wrote:

<snip>

We only discuss standard C, discussion of system specifics belong on
the groups dedicated to the relevant system and should be redirected
to such groups.

Quite right. He should have said "try select(), for POSIX systems".

Had he done, he should also have redirected the OP to an appropriate
group for further discussion and said that he was suggesting a system
specific solution because there is no solution within standard C.

Yeah, yeah. But that had already been taken care of elsethreadwhere.

S.