On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Gah, this 'little' project isn't so little :-)
>
> Should apr_thread_cond_* have the same semantics as the posix pthread_cond_*
> routines? If the answer is yes,
> then the Win32 implementation is going to be nasty (maybe nastier than it
> already is) and the performance is
> going to be rather bad ('rather bad' will prove to be a gross understatment I
> predict). It would be pretty
> easy (?) to whip out something based on Windows IO Completion Ports and the
> performance would be quite good,
> but IOCPs dispatch blocked threads in LIFO order and that means that some
> blocked threads may never be
> dispatched and broadcasting to all threads to wake up simply will not work
> reliably. I'm unlikely to have
> time to implement a solid posix like apr_thread_cond_* for windows... :-(
This is doable without IO Completion Ports, at least pthreads-win32 does
it. Hard yes, impossible with standard Win32 Events(the way it is
implemented now) - most likely, impossible at all (ubearably slow) - hardly.
--
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
