Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On 05/12/14 13:53, Michael Schnell wrote: > On 12/04/2014 04:24 PM, Lukasz Sokol wrote: >> Or e.g. I run FindFirst/FindNext loop over a large number of files, >> or even if I delegate reading of a file to another procedure, still >> takes time while nothing else can happen... (although /that/ >> actually I can imagine doing in a thread). Then such >> Application.ProcessMessages is about the only option ? > > A long winding loop (such as "FindNext" freezes the GUI and all > TTimers if you don't include ProcessMessages. Yes. > > If doing the loop in a Thread you can send status messages to the > main (GUI) thread by means of TThread.Queue or > Application.QueueAsyncCall. (You do know that you can't access the > GUI from a worker thread.) > Yes. These are 'technicalities' of inter-thread communications more specifically thread-to-mainthread communication) that can be figured out relatively easily and found when you need them. Let's assume we have a procedure that is executed once per the window being created (or shown) : first we read a file list into a list of file names, read some attributes (e.g. file date) into a string list and put it into a TMemo or some TFileList; then we read a file list with a slightly different mask and read their names/dates and put it into another TMemo or TFileList; and finally, we read yet another set of files and put names/dates into a memo or filelist. (as it would be, say a result of having input files created by external program, fed to another external program, and another external processing program called on the output of the second one, so we have 3 sets of files: input, itermediate, output.) Let's also assume that the files need to be read in particular order (as what we want to read in second and third indexing may depend on what we read in the first and second one). So we create TThread workers for indexing1, indexing2 and indexing3, they return TStringList's to us, we call some string-list processing procedures on their results [which don't take as much time to process so they are called in main thread context with ProcessMessages in their loops, but if they were to be more 'complex' and time-consuming, they would be put into threads of themselves too] and give certain parameters to the next indexing' (or worker) thread to work with. What I mean is, when I have a long-winding [long-timed] sequence of worker threads like this, written inside of an 'OnShow' or 'OnClick', I want to have the whole of the sequence written in ONE logical flow, inside one procedure code block... right ? (and say it's written so that one procedure is not longer than 3 screens vertically ;) and has no more than 3 levels of nesting too;) and most importantly to use same local variables (locally created string lists, for example). (ok I know this probably is an 'obvious' thing for any formally trained programmer of just about any language out there... ;) but I ain't one... ) The advice to OP was, fire up a thread (or TTimer) for such long processing loops as the 'last thing' in the sequence, then continue the flow of whatever you need to do in another procedure, called after the thread/ttimer is done... which I argue is not optimal /to humans/ as a) it disturbs reading order and b) disallows the portions of the logically close code from using same local variables and c) if put as subroutines, disturbs reading flow even worse. > -Michael > el es -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On 12/08/2014 10:20 AM, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
BTW, TThread.Synchronize is hardly a queue.
Yes there is a Queue (internally in the RTL it's called "*ThreadQueue*" )
This is the source code in the RTL:
class procedure TThread.Synchronize(AThread: TThread; AMethod:
TThreadMethod);
begin
{ ensure that we have a TThread instance }
if not Assigned(AThread) then
AThread := CurrentThread;
{ the Synchronize event is instantiated on demand }
AThread.InitSynchronizeEvent;
AThread.FSynchronizeEntry^.Exception := Nil;
AThread.FSynchronizeEntry^.Method := AMethod;
*ThreadQueueAppend*(AThread.FSynchronizeEntry);
AThread.FSynchronizeEntry^.Method := Nil;
AThread.FSynchronizeEntry^.Next := Nil;
end;
-Michael
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:03:15 +0100 Michael Schnell wrote: > On 12/07/2014 10:05 PM, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > > HandleMessage waits until a message is in the queue, calls > > ProcessMessages and returns. > > Does it wait up as well when some Event is pushed upon the GUI queue (in > Windows a Windows message occurs, in Linux a Lazarus Event), as when an > Event happens for the TThread "Synchonize" Event Queue in the fpc RTL ? Yes. And as I corrected myself: It first processes messages and then waits. BTW, TThread.Synchronize is hardly a queue. Mattias -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On 12/08/2014 10:03 AM, Michael Schnell wrote: Does it wait up Sorry Typo: "wake up" -Michael -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On 12/07/2014 10:05 PM, Mattias Gaertner wrote: HandleMessage waits until a message is in the queue, calls ProcessMessages and returns. Does it wait up as well when some Event is pushed upon the GUI queue (in Windows a Windows message occurs, in Linux a Lazarus Event), as when an Event happens for the TThread "Synchonize" Event Queue in the fpc RTL ? -Michael ( I am going to upgrade my Event handling test program for tests with HandleMessage ASAP). -Michael -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:05:29 +0100 Mattias Gaertner wrote: > On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 16:50:10 -0300 > Flávio Etrusco wrote: > > >[...] > > > Also implemented in Lazarus. > > > HandleMessage waits till the next message. > > > > Unfortunately in Lazarus it doesn't (wait). > > If it would not wait you would see 100% load in LCL > applications. > HandleMessage waits until a message is in the queue, calls > ProcessMessages and returns. Sorry. I was wrong. It first calls ProcessMessages and then waits for next message. Mattias -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 16:50:10 -0300 Flávio Etrusco wrote: >[...] > > Also implemented in Lazarus. > > HandleMessage waits till the next message. > > Unfortunately in Lazarus it doesn't (wait). If it would not wait you would see 100% load in LCL applications. HandleMessage waits until a message is in the queue, calls ProcessMessages and returns. Mattias -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 16:02:40 +0100 > JuuS wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> A bit late with this and haven't read everything through and through but... >> >> I worked with Delphi for some time and, yes, Application.Processmessages >> brings system to knees and processor to 100%. >> >> But in Delphi there was also an Application.Handlemessage...used like this: >> >> repeat >> Application.HandleMessage; >> until AKeyPressed (or whatever); >> >> ...and the system is calm (normal load) and the program responsive. It >> was like Handlemessage was sipping water drops dripping from a fern >> leaf, while Processmessages was drinking from a fire hose... :) >> >> I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, not reading all the >> mails, and also don't know if Handlemessage is implemented in Lazarus >> (not being by my computer right now). > > Also implemented in Lazarus. > HandleMessage waits till the next message. > > > Mattias Unfortunately in Lazarus it doesn't (wait). -Flávio -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 16:02:40 +0100 JuuS wrote: > Hi all, > > A bit late with this and haven't read everything through and through but... > > I worked with Delphi for some time and, yes, Application.Processmessages > brings system to knees and processor to 100%. > > But in Delphi there was also an Application.Handlemessage...used like this: > > repeat > Application.HandleMessage; > until AKeyPressed (or whatever); > > ...and the system is calm (normal load) and the program responsive. It > was like Handlemessage was sipping water drops dripping from a fern > leaf, while Processmessages was drinking from a fire hose... :) > > I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, not reading all the > mails, and also don't know if Handlemessage is implemented in Lazarus > (not being by my computer right now). Also implemented in Lazarus. HandleMessage waits till the next message. Mattias -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
Hi all, A bit late with this and haven't read everything through and through but... I worked with Delphi for some time and, yes, Application.Processmessages brings system to knees and processor to 100%. But in Delphi there was also an Application.Handlemessage...used like this: repeat Application.HandleMessage; until AKeyPressed (or whatever); ...and the system is calm (normal load) and the program responsive. It was like Handlemessage was sipping water drops dripping from a fern leaf, while Processmessages was drinking from a fire hose... :) I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, not reading all the mails, and also don't know if Handlemessage is implemented in Lazarus (not being by my computer right now). Hope this helps someone. Julius On 05/12/2014 14:59, Lukasz Sokol wrote: > On 04/12/14 20:34, waldo kitty wrote: >> On 12/4/2014 10:24 AM, Lukasz Sokol wrote: >>> (OnTimer execution has the same problem : inevitably splits the procedure >>> into >>> more procedures, that can no longer use same local variables and stuff) >> >> you can't make them subroutines of the subroutine? >> > > Interesting, but breaks the flow of human reading (as, comparably, top > posting does): > because subroutines have to be defined at the top of the subroutine... > >> eg: >> >> program foobie; >> >> procedure dofoobie; >> >> var >> thisfoo : integer = 0; >> thatfoo : integer = 0; >> >> procedure littlefoobie; /// << this logically comes AFTER but we don't >> know that until we read... >> begin >> inc(thisfoo,thatfoo); >> inc(thatfoo); /// this probably is not much of a problem when a >> subroutine is this short > // it's the much-longer ones >> end; >> >> begin >> repeat >> begin > foobiee( ... ); /// ... that this logically comes first >> littlefoobie; >> writeln(thisfoo,'',thatfoo); >> end; >> until thisfoo >= 25; >> end; >> >> begin >> dofoobie; >> end. >> >> > > How would you put this into subroutines: > > > procedure very_long_initialization_routine; > // (var some_big_list_of_variables... ) > > begin > Timer1.Enabled := false; > > do_this(); > do_that(); // now for the sake of argument, say this routine fires up a > thread reading in 1s of file names through FindFirst/FindNext > // now we need a long delay before calling do_foo() that would operate on > that list, so > > Timer1.OnTimer := do_the_rest_of_initialization(); > Timer1.Delay := 1; // pseudo-code, can't remember how was that > exactly called > Timer1.Enabled := true; > // that's it, we need to split here to give message loop opportunity to do > Application.ProcessMessages > end; > > /// (and here we break variable locality...) > > procedure do_the_rest_of_initialization; > begin > do_foo(...); > // rinse&repeat if you have more sections like that doing different > things... > end; > > One can of course have TTimer as locally created object in the > very_long_initialization_routine, yes... but an > Application.ProcessMessages + sleep(100) loop is probably much easier to type > (and debug, and read). > > Not mentioning that probably loop would be a wee little (tiny) bit more > precise than calling the Timer ? > > (that of course YMMV and IMvhO) > > el_es > > > -- > ___ > Lazarus mailing list > Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org > http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus > -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On 04/12/14 20:34, waldo kitty wrote: > On 12/4/2014 10:24 AM, Lukasz Sokol wrote: >> (OnTimer execution has the same problem : inevitably splits the procedure >> into >> more procedures, that can no longer use same local variables and stuff) > > you can't make them subroutines of the subroutine? > Interesting, but breaks the flow of human reading (as, comparably, top posting does): because subroutines have to be defined at the top of the subroutine... > eg: > > program foobie; > > procedure dofoobie; > > var > thisfoo : integer = 0; > thatfoo : integer = 0; > > procedure littlefoobie; /// << this logically comes AFTER but we don't > know that until we read... > begin > inc(thisfoo,thatfoo); > inc(thatfoo); /// this probably is not much of a problem when a > subroutine is this short // it's the much-longer ones > end; > > begin > repeat > begin foobiee( ... ); /// ... that this logically comes first > littlefoobie; > writeln(thisfoo,'',thatfoo); > end; > until thisfoo >= 25; > end; > > begin > dofoobie; > end. > > How would you put this into subroutines: procedure very_long_initialization_routine; // (var some_big_list_of_variables... ) begin Timer1.Enabled := false; do_this(); do_that(); // now for the sake of argument, say this routine fires up a thread reading in 1s of file names through FindFirst/FindNext // now we need a long delay before calling do_foo() that would operate on that list, so Timer1.OnTimer := do_the_rest_of_initialization(); Timer1.Delay := 1; // pseudo-code, can't remember how was that exactly called Timer1.Enabled := true; // that's it, we need to split here to give message loop opportunity to do Application.ProcessMessages end; /// (and here we break variable locality...) procedure do_the_rest_of_initialization; begin do_foo(...); // rinse&repeat if you have more sections like that doing different things... end; One can of course have TTimer as locally created object in the very_long_initialization_routine, yes... but an Application.ProcessMessages + sleep(100) loop is probably much easier to type (and debug, and read). Not mentioning that probably loop would be a wee little (tiny) bit more precise than calling the Timer ? (that of course YMMV and IMvhO) el_es -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On 12/04/2014 04:24 PM, Lukasz Sokol wrote: Or e.g. I run FindFirst/FindNext loop over a large number of files, or even if I delegate reading of a file to another procedure, still takes time while nothing else can happen... (although /that/ actually I can imagine doing in a thread). Then such Application.ProcessMessages is about the only option ? A long winding loop (such as "FindNext" freezes the GUI and all TTimers if you don't include ProcessMessages. If doing the loop in a Thread you can send status messages to the main (GUI) thread by means of TThread.Queue or Application.QueueAsyncCall. (You do know that you can't access the GUI from a worker thread.) -Michael -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On 12/04/2014 04:24 PM, Lukasz Sokol wrote: Executing a thread, which would TOO contain Sleep() in its Execute, and then calling into next part of the startup procedure ? When doing threads a completely different paradigm needs to be applied. - TTimer can't be used in a thread - sleep often is very appropriate in at thread, while sleep in the main thread freezes the GUI and all TTImers, and hence should not be used. -Michael -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On 12/4/2014 10:24 AM, Lukasz Sokol wrote: (OnTimer execution has the same problem : inevitably splits the procedure into more procedures, that can no longer use same local variables and stuff) you can't make them subroutines of the subroutine? eg: program foobie; procedure dofoobie; var thisfoo : integer = 0; thatfoo : integer = 0; procedure littlefoobie; begin inc(thisfoo,thatfoo); inc(thatfoo); end; begin repeat begin littlefoobie; writeln(thisfoo,'',thatfoo); end; until thisfoo >= 25; end; begin dofoobie; end. -- NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval. Please *keep mailing list traffic on the list* unless private contact is specifically requested and granted. -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
2014-12-04 18:20 GMT+01:00 Paul Breneman : > On 12/03/2014 04:51 PM, Paul Breneman wrote: > >> On 12/03/2014 04:37 PM, Terry A. Haimann wrote: >> >>> I have a program that starts some background processes and then needs to >>> go to sleep for 15 seconds or so and then come back and check on their >>> statuses. So I used a loop like the following: >>> >>> EndTime := Now + EncodeTime(0, 0, 15, 0); >>> While Now < EndTime do >>>Application.ProcessMessages; >>> >>> The problem is that the core this process runs on is running 60-80% cpu >>> utilization. Is there away to do something like this and not max the >>> core out? This computer is an i5 Desktop running Linux Mint 17-64. >>> >>> Thanks in advance,T. >>> >> >> The quickest thing to do is to put Sleep(10) inside the while loop. That >> will help you get longer battery life on a laptop and a cooler CPU! >> >> But I would normally use a separate thread. There are a number of >> examples here (see ExThread---): >>http://turbocontrol.com/APro.htm >> If you search CodeNewsFast you might be able to turn up a number on >> explanations on why I recommend using a separate thread. >> >> Regards, >> Paul >> www.TurboControl.com >> > > I'm replying a second time as my first reply didn't get posted (yet). > > Here is a message that has my (old) summary: :) > http://codenewsfast.com/cnf/article/0/permalink.art-ng1824q786 FWIW, your previous message did reach me: Received: by 10.152.234.229 with SMTP id uh5csp19639lac; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 14:51:27 -0800 (PST) -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On 12/03/2014 04:51 PM, Paul Breneman wrote: On 12/03/2014 04:37 PM, Terry A. Haimann wrote: I have a program that starts some background processes and then needs to go to sleep for 15 seconds or so and then come back and check on their statuses. So I used a loop like the following: EndTime := Now + EncodeTime(0, 0, 15, 0); While Now < EndTime do Application.ProcessMessages; The problem is that the core this process runs on is running 60-80% cpu utilization. Is there away to do something like this and not max the core out? This computer is an i5 Desktop running Linux Mint 17-64. Thanks in advance,T. The quickest thing to do is to put Sleep(10) inside the while loop. That will help you get longer battery life on a laptop and a cooler CPU! But I would normally use a separate thread. There are a number of examples here (see ExThread---): http://turbocontrol.com/APro.htm If you search CodeNewsFast you might be able to turn up a number on explanations on why I recommend using a separate thread. Regards, Paul www.TurboControl.com I'm replying a second time as my first reply didn't get posted (yet). Here is a message that has my (old) summary: :) http://codenewsfast.com/cnf/article/0/permalink.art-ng1824q786 -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
Hi, (for md as well as Michael) On 04/12/14 08:35, Michael Schnell wrote: > On 12/03/2014 11:37 PM, Terry A. Haimann wrote: >> I have a program that starts some background processes and then >> needs to go to sleep for 15 seconds or so and then come back and >> check on their statuses. > > A "more decent" way is to leave the current event and use a TTimer > (e.g. with en event counting down seconds) and do the necessary stuff > in the timer event. > But sometimes it's totally not practical and worse than that, unmaintainable to split the set order of execution of the startup procedure like that... Executing a thread, which would TOO contain Sleep() in its Execute, and then calling into next part of the startup procedure ? (OnTimer execution has the same problem : inevitably splits the procedure into more procedures, that can no longer use same local variables and stuff) (say I need to load some library in OnCreate (or even in initialization), [or be it that I want to load a library on demand, when user wants to use a feature] that in turn takes some time to initialize itself and does not work properly if called before some time passes; or if it's clever(er) gives us a status call; but no other calls may be used in further of my program until the init is complete; but I don't want the form to freeze while init is going on, but rather have e.g. a progress bar, and maybe an error message on timeout;) Or e.g. I run FindFirst/FindNext loop over a large number of files, or even if I delegate reading of a file to another procedure, still takes time while nothing else can happen... (although /that/ actually I can imagine doing in a thread). Then such Application.ProcessMessages is about the only option ? > -Michael > Lukasz -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On 12/03/2014 11:37 PM, Terry A. Haimann wrote: I have a program that starts some background processes and then needs to go to sleep for 15 seconds or so and then come back and check on their statuses. A "more decent" way is to leave the current event and use a TTimer (e.g. with en event counting down seconds) and do the necessary stuff in the timer event. -Michael -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
Simple, TThread.Execute ; override ; Application process messages is SO Windows 3.1. md On 12/3/2014 5:51 PM, Paul Breneman wrote: > On 12/03/2014 04:37 PM, Terry A. Haimann wrote: >> I have a program that starts some background processes and then needs to >> go to sleep for 15 seconds or so and then come back and check on their >> statuses. So I used a loop like the following: >> >> EndTime := Now + EncodeTime(0, 0, 15, 0); >> While Now < EndTime do >>Application.ProcessMessages; >> >> The problem is that the core this process runs on is running 60-80% cpu >> utilization. Is there away to do something like this and not max the >> core out? This computer is an i5 Desktop running Linux Mint 17-64. >> >> Thanks in advance,T. > > The quickest thing to do is to put Sleep(10) inside the while loop. That > will help you get longer battery life on a laptop and a cooler CPU! > > But I would normally use a separate thread. There are a number of > examples here (see ExThread---): > http://turbocontrol.com/APro.htm > If you search CodeNewsFast you might be able to turn up a number on > explanations on why I recommend using a separate thread. > > Regards, > Paul > www.TurboControl.com > > > -- > ___ > Lazarus mailing list > Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org > http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus > -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On 12/03/2014 04:37 PM, Terry A. Haimann wrote: I have a program that starts some background processes and then needs to go to sleep for 15 seconds or so and then come back and check on their statuses. So I used a loop like the following: EndTime := Now + EncodeTime(0, 0, 15, 0); While Now < EndTime do Application.ProcessMessages; The problem is that the core this process runs on is running 60-80% cpu utilization. Is there away to do something like this and not max the core out? This computer is an i5 Desktop running Linux Mint 17-64. Thanks in advance, T. The quickest thing to do is to put Sleep(10) inside the while loop. That will help you get longer battery life on a laptop and a cooler CPU! But I would normally use a separate thread. There are a number of examples here (see ExThread---): http://turbocontrol.com/APro.htm If you search CodeNewsFast you might be able to turn up a number on explanations on why I recommend using a separate thread. Regards, Paul www.TurboControl.com -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 16:37:38 -0600 "Terry A. Haimann" wrote: > I have a program that starts some background processes and then needs to > go to sleep for 15 seconds or so and then come back and check on their > statuses. So I used a loop like the following: EndTime := Now + EncodeTime(0, 0, 15, 0); While (Now < EndTime) and not WaitingCancelled do begin Application.ProcessMessages; Sleep(10); end; > The problem is that the core this process runs on is running 60-80% cpu > utilization. Is there away to do something like this and not max the > core out? This computer is an i5 Desktop running Linux Mint 17-64. Mattias -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
[Lazarus] Lazarus and Application.ProcessMessages
I have a program that starts some background processes and then needs to go to sleep for 15 seconds or so and then come back and check on their statuses. So I used a loop like the following: EndTime := Now + EncodeTime(0, 0, 15, 0); While Now < EndTime do Application.ProcessMessages; The problem is that the core this process runs on is running 60-80% cpu utilization. Is there away to do something like this and not max the core out? This computer is an i5 Desktop running Linux Mint 17-64. Thanks in advance, T. -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
