|
Boost : |
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-21 15:42:16
Juergen Hunold:
...
> I've got a small fix attached which (hopefully) initialises "rqtp"
> completely in the initialiser list and removes the (hopefully)
> redundant assignments.
else
{
- struct timespec rqtp = { 0 };
+ struct timespec rqtp = { 0, 1000 };
- rqtp.tv_sec = 0;
- rqtp.tv_nsec = 1000;
-
nanosleep( &rqtp, 0 );
}
POSIX says that struct timespec has at least the members tv_sec and tv_nsec,
but it doesn't guarantee their order or placement. Does
struct timespec rqtp = {};
still emit the warnings?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk