I had some issues and noted some comments on stack etc. about not setting
this to zero, but close is ok so perhaps using milliseconds(1) would be
better ? I did have some related issues, but it was a bug in clang.

Best Regards
David Irvine

It's not difficult, it's different !

 <http://maidsafe.net>maidsafe.net Limited is a limited liability company
incorporated in Scotland with number SC297540. VAT Registered 889 0608 77.
Registered Office: 72 Templehill, Troon, KA10 6BE.
Telephone Scotland: +44  *1292 317311*



On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Fraser Hutchison
<notifications@github.com>wrote:

> In src/maidsafe/common/key_value_buffer.cc:
>
> > @@ -343,7 +344,7 @@ void KeyValueBuffer::CopyQueueToDisk() {
> >
> >  void KeyValueBuffer::CheckWorkerIsStillRunning() {
> >    // if this goes ready then we have an exception so get that (throw basically)
> > -  if (worker_.wait_for(std::chrono::seconds(0)) == std::future_status::ready &&
> > +  if (worker_.wait_for(std::chrono::seconds(1)) == std::future_status::ready &&
>
> Does Clang give a warning here? I think this should be
> wait_for(std::chrono::seconds(0)) to avoid blocking.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/maidsafe/MaidSafe-Common/pull/25/files#r4997941>
> .
>