On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> On Friday 24 August 2007 07:55, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Vinzent Hoefler wrote: > > > On Thursday 23 August 2007 19:47, Jonas Maebe wrote: > > > > On 23 Aug 2007, at 21:29, Luca Olivetti wrote: > > > > > How are these different to the TEventObject,TSimpleEvent > > > > > classes in syncobjs? Just curious, since I usually do with > > > > > syncobjs, and I don't see a big difference between > > > > > MyEvent.SetEvent/MyEvent.WaitFor and > > > > > RTLEventSetEvent/RTLEventWaitFor > > > > > > > > If you look at the source of syncobjs, you'll notice teventobject > > > > is just an OO coat for tbasicrtlevent. > > > > > > Last time I looked this is only true for Win32, the Unix version > > > seems to be very different and is implemented with semaphores. Is > > > there a reason why those routines are not simply based POSIX > > > condition variables? > > > > Yes: a single source base. All 'basic' threading routines are in the > > system unit, all the rest is based on that. > > Yes, I figured that this was the idea. I don't have access to the > current SVN version (not before this evening when I am back home) to > adequately show what I mean, but - from my bad memory - the question > remains why > > 1) the Unix version makes so strange and wild efforts to support WaitFor > with timeouts if there is pthread_cond_timed_wait() (and this is used > elsewhere already) and This I don't know; I didn't implement it. > 2) why the SyncObjs tEvent objects uses those semaphore stuff instead of > the fixed RTLEvents. It's based on the Windows implementation, as far as I know ? Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
