Well, this is what I assume to be the problem. The whole point of this thread manager I am trying to write is to provide a separate "clean" thread from where new threads are spawned to minimise the amount of data copied.
Even so, a whole second is a long time to copy a process, isn't it? -----Original Message----- From: Marc M. Adkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 23 July 2002 23:21 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: threads in threads? > It seems to > take about a second for threads->new() to return, very odd, but it > doesn't always happen as a small script I wrote to prove myself wrong > ran fine (as long as I joined everything by the end of the block). Is it possible that your example where new() takes a long time is a really big program? Or one with a lot of data or packages loaded? Resulting in a lot of copying internally to create the subsidiary threads? As compared to a small test program where there isn't much to copy and the new() returns quickly? I'd be interested in any accumulated wisdom on how ithreads scale to large programs wrt the copying required to create a new thread. I suppose I could write some test scripts...if they don't already exist somewhere... mma
