On Mar 6, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Michael Sweet wrote: > [email protected] wrote: >> Author: matt >> Date: 2007-03-06 12:15:03 -0500 (Tue, 06 Mar 2007) >> New Revision: 5729 >> Log: >> This is a suggested change. It is complete except for documentation. > > Um, can we discuss these changes before making them?
Yes, I normally would. If you don't like it, I'll reverse the SVN. > One of the > reasons I didn't go for a memory-queued RPC approach was because > of the added locking and memory usage... Yes, I thought about that. As for the memory, the buffer does not get allocated unless you actually use this feature. I agree on the lock, and I'd be happy to implement it. >> I will do some more stress testing tonight. > > Yeah, you'll need to since now Fl::awake() can deadlock if you > already have called Fl::lock() in the current thread! Yes, this version of awake can not be called while the thread is locked. A ringbuffer lock would be the only way to prevent this. Anyway, the current 'awake' system requires a number of crutches to work well. Do you prefer that I finish the new code or should we reverse the svn? I am fine with either and just make my stuff into a patch... . Matthias ---- http://robowerk.com/ _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
