Ok, but you have to acknowledge that the trend is to multiply the number of
cores that are possibly less porwerful on their own. Look the frequencies : 2
years ago, you had one core clocked over 3Ghz, now 2 cores are clocked at about
2.4 / 2.6 Ghz, and both Intel and AMD are announcing/releasing Quad core these
days.
So, if we don't want FG not using more than 50% CPU, and perhaps not more than
25% further in time, we will have to go to that direction.
I'm not saying we should not ever do threading in flightgear, indeed we have two sub threads along with the main program already.
My only point is we shouldn't thread something that takes 0.5% of the processor time of the main thread just because we think threads are cool.
Threads impose a huge penalty in terms of complicating the code, hiding really subtle bugs, and maintaining threaded code over time just complicates this matter because new people come in and make changes when they don't fully understand all the subtle interrelationships (timing, functionality, etc) of the code.
So sure, we can add more threads, but there needs to be some really substantial justification for doing it, and if there isn't a significant performance based justification as part of that, then I will be very sceptical.
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson - University of Minnesota - FlightGear Project
http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
