Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:12:30 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Maurice Lombardi <Maurice DOT Lombardi AT ujf-grenoble DOT fr>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com, gpc AT gnu DOT de
Subject: Re: Bug in Delay
In-Reply-To: <3AC2FF62.2090203@ujf-grenoble.fr>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010329120944.3269d@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Maurice Lombardi wrote:

> > What I'm wondering is, if DJGPP's libc contains a delay() function
> > which does handle short delays well (and even seems to use
> > microseconds internally AFAICS), why doesn't its usleep() function
> > do the same thing?

If both functions used the same service, you couldn't have chosen one or 
the other, depending on your needs.  Having both is better than only one.

Why is it a problem that they use different methods?  The docs clearly 
says what service is used, so the information is available, isn't it?