Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:27:24 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: More signed/unsigned issues
In-Reply-To: <200106201707.TAA22797@father.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010621102652.7710C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Martin Str|mberg wrote:

> --- src/libc/posix/unistd/sleep.c       1995/03/12 21:28:52     1.1
> +++ src/libc/posix/unistd/sleep.c       2001/06/20 16:57:21
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ unsigned int
>  sleep(unsigned int _seconds)
>  {
>    clock_t start_time = clock();
> -  while (clock()-start_time < _seconds * CLOCKS_PER_SEC)
> +  while (clock()-start_time < (signed long long)_seconds * CLOCKS_PER_SEC)
>      __dpmi_yield();
>    return 0;
>  }

How about

  while (((unsigned)(clock() - start_time)) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC < _seconds)

?  This removes the need for long long arithmetics, and also should
work all the way till `clock's result overflows.