On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 07:04:16PM +0200, Gabriel Kerneis
<[email protected]> wrote:
> IIRC (but I might be wrong), this was not the case when I first tried
> libev one or two years ago. If so, what is the reason for this change?
Convenience or speed. However, the ordering was never one way or another,
as libev does not keep anything in a specific ordering, so for example,
when you rmeove a watcher, it might move the last watcher to the newly
freed position in the array it uses internally.
> Is the order guaranteed anyway,
No.
> or is it just safer not to rely on it in any manner?
It's definitely safer, as libev explicitly documents priorities as the way
to influence ordering (see WATCHER PRIORITY MODELS).
The default number of priorities should be good for most interdependencies
between watchers (typical case: have the I/O watcher at a higher priority
than timeout watcher for the same event source).
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [email protected]
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
_______________________________________________
libev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libev
