On Mar 6, 2007, at 9:19 PM, Michael Sweet wrote: > My objection was more a matter of not expecting the thread > messaging API to change again... :)
Oh, got'ya. >> Yes, I thought about that. As for the memory, the buffer does not get >> allocated unless you actually use this feature. > > Right, that's one of the things I like about your implementation > (that and using the ring buffer, which takes me back to my old > real-time programming days... :) Hah, I've been updating some PIC microcontroller code recently. When you have 2k of ROM and 105 bytes of RAM, you learn to save. And I generally love the concept of lazy evaluation. It matches my way of working. >> ... >> 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... . > > Please finish the new code (and documentation) - you just need to > add the mutex stuff to make it work cleanly, everything else looks > just fine to me... I committed the new locking already and I update my test process now. Do you want to keep "Fl::set_awake_cb()" API? It is way better than the "Fl::wait(void*)" API, but may be confusing as a third API?! Matthias ---- http://robowerk.com/ _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
