On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:20:27 +0800
Xiangrong Fang wrote:
>[...]
> My question is, why cannot Lazarus just use PostMessage, but invent the
> QueueAsyncCall() method? What is the rationale, or, why PostMessage is
> considered windows-ish (read: not fit into LCL very well?), apart from the
> fact t
On 09/19/2014 11:20 AM, Xiangrong Fang wrote:
Hi,
In a previous email asking about PostMessage, Michael suggested I used
QueueAsyncCall instead,
In fact now that I know what you are trying to accomplish (a Thread
Pool) I take back the suggestion of QueueAsyncCall, as same is supported
by Laza
Hi,
In a previous email asking about PostMessage, Michael suggested I used
QueueAsyncCall instead, because although it's OK to use PostMessage, but it
is considered a Windows Legacy, or only for Delphi compatibility.
However, in actual use, I feel that PostMessage does a better job for code
separ
On 09/18/2014 06:53 PM, Bernd wrote:
If it reports 4 CPUs then you have exactly 4 CPUs.
Correct from a algorithm POV, but not from a performance POV.
-Michael
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-
On 09/15/2014 11:19 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
too many threads increasing switching time and thus decreases performance
Not only this.
Additionally Linux tries to keep a thread/Task at the same CPU when
re-scheduling the CPUs. By this the count of misses on the (primary)
caches is decrea
