Re^3: Timeouts: Any alternative to alarm in Win32?

Do you see any problem with removing the sleep 1; line from the loop?

Well, without it, the loop will burn 100% cpu. If you need to go more quickly when the response is available more quickly, use Time::HiRes::usleep and say 25 milliseconds. (Or select<c>undef, undef, undef, 0.025;</c. would do.)

It'll avoid maxing the cpu but cut the minimum delay to 1/40th. Vary the number to see what you find acceptable. As there is IO involved, I doubt you'll go much more quickly with less than 25 millseconds.

I will test it under Linux when I get back to my office.

Be aware that I have no idea whether that ioctl number (0x8004667e), which is the key to the approach, will work on any system other than Win32. It might, but don't be surprised if it doesn't. Alternatively, if it does, please post to let me (us) know. It's always good to know these things.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."

Comment on Re^3: Timeouts: Any alternative to alarm in Win32? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Timeouts: Any alternative to alarm in Win32? by jbbarnes (Novice) on Dec 04, 2008 at 02:13 UTC
Yes, 0x8004667e did work under Linux, which actually surprised me. So the ioctl line works for both platforms, though the timeout doesn't.	[reply]


We don't bite newbies here... much
	PerlMonks