On Friday, 20 May 2016 at 02:04:56 UTC, captaindet wrote:
i am most curious about your solution.
why does printAll() has a synchronized block? in case you would
call it before thread_joinAll() i.e. before all threads are
terminated?
then again, why is there a synchronized block necessary in
On 2016-05-20 07:49, Era Scarecrow wrote:
Experimented and quickly got what looks like good clean results. Took
your code, ripped out what I didn't want and added in what I did. Simple!
https://dpaste.dzfl.pl/6952fdf463b66
i am most curious about your solution.
why does printAll() has a
On Thursday, 19 May 2016 at 19:31:26 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
An alternate to writing a custom appender is simply to make the
assignment atomic. Haven't tried this but if you did 'shared
string[] lines;'
I'll experiment with this and get back with you.
Multi-threading isn't my strong suit
On Thursday, 19 May 2016 at 13:33:50 UTC, Thorsten Sommer wrote:
Issue analysis: My main issue was that the main() does not
waited for the new thread (I used spawn() before I opened this
discussion). Thus, a simple thread_joinAll(); solved that.
Since each thread can run at different times
Dear all,
I am done :) Thanks @Kagamin, @Rene and @rikki for the help.
Short answers:
@Rene: You are right, I missed the starting of that task i.e.
thread. Used before spawn() where the thread runs directly. But
spawn() crashes dpaste.pl...
@rikki: Yes, I known what you mentioned ;) I just
I'd say do something like https://dpaste.dzfl.pl/e9a2327ff2a1
Any idea why it crashes?
On Thursday, 19 May 2016 at 10:58:42 UTC, Rene Zwanenburg wrote:
Calling task() only creates a Task, you also have to start it
somehow. The documentation contains an example:
https://dlang.org/phobos/std_parallelism.html#.task
I should add that a single shared array will cause contention if
On 19/05/2016 10:41 PM, Thorsten Sommer wrote:
On Thursday, 19 May 2016 at 10:13:21 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
At this point I'd recommend you to just ignore Appender.
Write your own.
Dear rikki,
Thanks for the proposal :) Here is the new attempt #4 as simple test
case:
On Thursday, 19 May 2016 at 10:41:14 UTC, Thorsten Sommer wrote:
On Thursday, 19 May 2016 at 10:13:21 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
At this point I'd recommend you to just ignore Appender.
Write your own.
Dear rikki,
Thanks for the proposal :) Here is the new attempt #4 as simple
test
On Thursday, 19 May 2016 at 10:13:21 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
At this point I'd recommend you to just ignore Appender.
Write your own.
Dear rikki,
Thanks for the proposal :) Here is the new attempt #4 as simple
test case: https://dpaste.dzfl.pl/f6a9663320e5
It compiles & runs, but the
On 19/05/2016 10:08 PM, Thorsten Sommer wrote:
Dear community,
I tried to create a kind of collector module which collects strings by
using a shared appender!string. Why? To collect KPIs at a huge program
across multiple classes and threads and store it later as e.g. CSV file
in order to
Dear community,
I tried to create a kind of collector module which collects
strings by using a shared appender!string. Why? To collect KPIs
at a huge program across multiple classes and threads and store
it later as e.g. CSV file in order to analyse it by using R.
But I failed...
Attempt
12 matches
Mail list logo
