Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 14:08:48 04/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2001 at 10:03:51, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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()?
Shared memory doesn't get freed automatically in linux if a process gets
killed. I prefer to to it in a neat way :)
Also it's hard to start a new process over and over again just for
every move, you filled killertables for nothing etc.
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.