Patch: platform usleep function

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Sturm <jsturm@one-point.com> writes:

Jeff> Is there any reason to prefer usleep over nanosleep?

Nope.  I just picked it since it is what we used to use.

Jeff> The latter is POSIX compatible and doesn't require signals.

Ok.  I wonder if we'll need a configure check for this.
Hopefully Anthony's (forthcoming :-) xscale-elf builds will tell us.

I'll update the patch once the Win32 bits are written.

Tom