So far, this seems to work very well under Win32. I will test it under Linux when I get back to my office. Thanks a lot.
One question: Do you see any problem with removing the sleep 1; line from the loop? This code will be part of a loop itself to test the response of about 150 machines. I can normally get responses from up to ten machines per second. With the sleep line, that will drop it to maybe one machine every couple of seconds, which is a big performance hit. So far it appears to work reliably without the sleep line.
In reply to Re^2: Timeouts: Any alternative to alarm in Win32?
by jbbarnes
in thread Timeouts: Any alternative to alarm in Win32?
by jbbarnes
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |