From a licensing perspective I suppose you are free and clear to
implement your own atomic locking in asm so long as you don't look at
Qts implementation.
Qt is GPL or paid-for commercial unlike OSG which allows free
commercial use.
Integrating that with OpenThreads would give you even more
performance than what I provided because you have
one less layer of abstraction.
QOpenThreads is still useful because all of the QThreads know about
each other and the QMutex / QWaitCondition check the
current QThread in their atomic locking algorithms.
Dan
On Jul 25, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Robert Osfield wrote:
On 7/25/06, Daniel Larimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Qt uses pthreads on OS X / Linux and probably something native for
windows.
Isn't that what OpenThreads already does?
So rather than have OpenThreads over the top of pthread or win32, you
have OpenThreads over the top of Qt which is over the top of pthread
or win32.
Reading the Qt page the main benefit would be extra machine code
atomic increment/decrement. It would interested profiling things to
see.
Perhaps the Qt style changes could be applied to OpenThreads to the
general benefit.
Not to say a QThreads implementation of OpenThreads wouldn't still be
useful, OpenThreads is so tiny it would be easy to support another
path.
What is the licensing implications?
Robert.
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://openscenegraph.net/mailman/listinfo/osg-users
http://www.openscenegraph.org/
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://openscenegraph.net/mailman/listinfo/osg-users
http://www.openscenegraph.org/
