Re: [PATCH 2/2] clock_nanosleep.2, nanosleep.2: Use 'duration' rather than 'request'

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 4:34 PM Alejandro Colomar [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Elliott,

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 04:18:28PM -0800, enh wrote:

quoted

thanks! https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/platform/bionic/+/2987070
changes to

/**
 * [clock_nanosleep(2)](http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/clock_nanosleep.2.html)
 * sleeps for the given time (or until the given time if the TIMER_ABSTIME flag
 * is used), as measured by the given clock.
 *
 * Returns 0 on success, and returns -1 and returns an error number on failure.
 * If the sleep was interrupted by a signal, the return value will be `EINTR`
 * and `remainder` will be the amount of time remaining.
 */
int clock_nanosleep(clockid_t __clock, int __flags, const struct
timespec* _Nonnull __time, struct timespec* _Nullable __remainder);

Hmmmm, that's the best name, meaningfully, I think.  But I've been
trying to avoid it.  I don't like using names of standard functions in
identifiers; it might confuse.  As an alternative, I thought of 't'.
What do you think?

as you can see, i've taken the "the leading `__` means we get to
trample whatever we like" approach :-)

(we build bionic with hidden visibility and an explicit list of
symbols for the linker to export, so we'd have to be trying quite hard
to trip over ourselves.)

Have a lovely night!

Alex

--
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Looking for a remote C programming job at the moment.