Re: nanosleep on mingw

[Bruno Haible]

Jim Meyering wrote:
> You're welcome to commit that.

Committed. The only thing I'm worried about is that it's a compromise
between precision of the time interval and ues of CPU time:
Someone who invokes nanosleep with an argument of 0.3 seconds may complain
that 9.4 ms of busy-looping is not acceptable and that - in his application -
sleeping 0.29 or 0.31 s would be more acceptable than burning CPU time.
But nanosleep does not take a "precision" argument...

Bruno