Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:42:55 04/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2001 at 23:50:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 24, 2001 at 22:50:41, Hristo wrote: > >>select(..) doesn't do it. ;-((( >>wish it did!!!! >>select(..) works within a different domain and in general >>can not compare to WaitForMultipleObjects. ;-( >>WaitForMultipleObjects is, kind of like, select(..) on steroids! >>... >>The unix style is to keep things simple, which pays off when there >>is good design! >> >>hristo basically i want 2 things a) i want a search process/thread to idle b) when the i/o process decides that it is time to let the search start i want to *directly* let the search wake up. what i do now is similar to: for( ;; ) { sleep(100); if( sharedtree->gosearch || sharedtree->quit ) break; } I don't want to waste 100ms for each process! WaitForMultipleObjects is not using 100ms as far as i know to wake up! What to do in linux to get same effect? >why can't you produce the same effect with a group of descriptors? Writing >to such a descriptor from the "other end" will set that condition so that >select() will terminate... IE it seems like a small kludge, but it would >seem to allow the same sort of capability...???
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.