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.