Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:03:51 04/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2001 at 07:48:25, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 25, 2001 at 02:01:15, Hristo wrote: > >>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 >>> >>> >>>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...??? >> >>How to make sure that all (ALL) descriptors are set before select returns. >>Lets say I want select to return wtith either ALL-descriptors-set or >>NO-descriptors-set? Perhaps it can be done!? For me it's easier to >>think of this problem as a bunch of cond+mutex variables... >>This is what MS can do to ya ... get people spoiled and lazy ... >>and offers complicated solutions ... you use them and then you are stuck, >>because one never takes the time to find the simple, elegant solution. >> >>hristo > >Oh well, you can also do things in assembly of course >that's even more low level as non-ms is offering. >I prefer highlevel things which are fast! > >But see my previous post to bob what i want. I have 2 possible >event which are set in shared memory: > a) go search > b) quit > >for a special linux implementation i can modify that to a gosearch >command always to then quit when getting out of the loop. > >No big probs to do that. So basically 1 event is what i can rewrite it >to. > >How to rewrite in linux next thing: > for( ;; ) { > sleep(100); > if( sharedtree->gosearch ) > break; > } > if( sharedtree->quitprogram ) > .. > >No problems here to rewrite it to this. Just want it solved for linux! > >Best regards, >Vincent Why not just let the I/O thread _kill_ the search process rather than telling it to exit. Or send it a signal where its signal handler will simply exit()?
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.