Am 26.02.2015 15:43 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys
mailingli...@geldenhuys.co.uk:
On 2015-02-26 14:34, Michael Schnell wrote:
In fact I did understand I only am puzzled by the naming COM vs
CORBA, that in no way suggest the real (language-) functionality ref
counting vs not ref counting
I
Am 26.02.2015 15:43 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys
mailingli...@geldenhuys.co.uk:
On 2015-02-26 14:34, Michael Schnell wrote:
In fact I did understand I only am puzzled by the naming COM vs
CORBA, that in no way suggest the real (language-) functionality ref
counting vs not ref counting
I
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:12:01 +
Lukasz Sokol el.es...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/02/15 11:12, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:09:33 +
Lukasz Sokol el.es...@gmail.com wrote:
I got :
dpkg: error processing fpc-src_2.6.4-140420_i386.deb (--install):
trying to
On 26/02/15 15:03, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:12:01 +
Lukasz Sokol el.es...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah so I should have uninstalled the 'source' package first...
Yes.
I will add a 'Replaces: fpc-source', so that the next fpc-src deb will
automatically uninstall the
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:23:33PM +0800, Xiangrong Fang wrote:
I use rtlevent, but only meant to maintain a pool of threads, while there
is no task for a thread it is blocked waiting for an event.
BUT, that cannot be used to prioritize a thread. While you block a thread
using rtlevent, it
In our previous episode, Xiangrong Fang said:
BUT, that cannot be used to prioritize a thread. While you block a thread
using rtlevent, it can only be unblocked from another thread. While you use
sleep(), it still get time share of the CPU, only that it does nothing
until sleep finishes,
On 02/26/2015 03:34 PM, Xiangrong Fang wrote:
That's even better.
As said: sleep() does make sense when used for the purpose it's provided
for (by the OS). And in that use, it imposes the lowest possible overhead.
-Michael
___
fpc-pascal maillist
2015-02-26 21:53 GMT+08:00 Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl:
No, basically a sleeping thread is marked in the scheduler as do not
schedule for nn
ticks. The thread doesn't run to evaluate if it should contiue. That is
the
scheduler/kernel's task.
That's even better. And the key point
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Michael Schnell mschn...@lumino.de wrote:
On 02/26/2015 11:28 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Not ALL interfaces are reference-counted and auto-destroying. You can
create CORBA-style interfaces which are _not_ reference counted but
still have the full advantage
On 02/26/2015 03:29 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
I think you miss understood CORBA interfaces. I don’t know why it was
named as such in FPC, but it definitely doesn’t require or depend on
an external framework or services etc. CORBA interfaces are simply
interfaces (language feature) without
On 2015-02-26 14:34, Michael Schnell wrote:
In fact I did understand I only am puzzled by the naming COM vs
CORBA, that in no way suggest the real (language-) functionality ref
counting vs not ref counting
I know COM interface come from the need to interact with Windows COM.
CORBA (in terms
2015-02-26 18:50 GMT+08:00 Henry Vermaak henry.verm...@gmail.com:
Sleep is for granting the CPU for other processes for (at least) a
predefined time.
See the mail of the original poster: this is what he asked for.
Thats right.
This is incorrect, since if you pause a thread with
On 02/26/2015 02:04 PM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
FPC give us the option to use CORBA or COM interfaces.
Neither COM nor CORBA is something that is imposed by the language,
but it's features are due to some external framework.
While interface (as discussed in this thread) is a language feature
On 2015-02-26 13:48, Michael Schnell wrote:
Neither COM nor CORBA is something that is imposed by the language,
but it's features are due to some external framework.
I think you miss understood CORBA interfaces. I don’t know why it was
named as such in FPC, but it definitely doesn’t require or
In our previous episode, Michael Schnell said:
In fact I did understand I only am puzzled by the naming COM vs
CORBA, that in no way suggest the real (language-) functionality ref
counting vs not ref counting
IIRC there was discussion back then about having non COM interfaces. Corba
On 02/25/2015 09:17 PM, fredvs wrote:
Hello.
You may use RTLEvents to pause a thread. =
Obviously CPU the overhead is a lot greater than with just calling sleep.
-Michael
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
In our previous episode, Michael Schnell said:
You may use RTLEvents to pause a thread. =
Obviously CPU the overhead is a lot greater than with just calling sleep.
??? Afaik they are the procedural counterpart of TEvents, and I think that
using them is cheaper than sleep, since you only
I got :
dpkg: error processing fpc-src_2.6.4-140420_i386.deb (--install):
trying to overwrite
'/usr/share/fpcsrc/2.6.4/packages/postgres/src/postgres3.pp', which is also in
package fpc-source-2.6.4 2.6.4+dfsg-4~bpo70+1
while installing the three debs intentionally as replacement of those got
On 2015-02-25 09:23, Michael Schnell wrote:
reference-counted and auto-destroying
Not ALL interfaces are reference-counted and auto-destroying. You can
create CORBA-style interfaces which are _not_ reference counted but
still have the full advantage of a interface.
Regards,
- Graeme -
--
On 02/26/2015 11:33 AM, Henry Vermaak wrote:
Blocking with an even will sleep until someone wakes you up, it's very
efficient. Using sleep() you will have to wake up, check if someone
needs you, go to sleep again, etc. This is obviously more inefficient.
We were talking about the overhead of
On 02/26/2015 10:50 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
??? Afaik they are the procedural counterpart of TEvents, and I think
that using them is cheaper than sleep, since you only unblock when
needed.
??? I _thought_ sleep would just call the appropriate OS function but in
fact it does
Function
On 02/26/2015 11:14 AM, Michael Schnell wrote:
I don't know what this does.
With stepping in ASM I verified that (after some calculation) it does
just a single syscall (via a sysenter Assembler instruction).
so the overhead is minimal.
-Michael
On 02/26/2015 11:28 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Not ALL interfaces are reference-counted and auto-destroying. You can
create CORBA-style interfaces which are _not_ reference counted but
still have the full advantage of a interface.
I see.
hence interface denotes two language constructs that
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:20:41AM +0100, Michael Schnell wrote:
On 02/26/2015 11:14 AM, Michael Schnell wrote:
I don't know what this does.
With stepping in ASM I verified that (after some calculation) it
does just a single syscall (via a sysenter Assembler instruction).
so the overhead is
On 02/26/2015 11:50 AM, Henry Vermaak wrote:
Obviously CPU the overhead is a lot greater than with just calling sleep.
. Regarding the context ;-)
-Michael
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:40:44AM +0100, Michael Schnell wrote:
On 02/26/2015 11:33 AM, Henry Vermaak wrote:
Blocking with an even will sleep until someone wakes you up, it's
very efficient. Using sleep() you will have to wake up, check if
someone needs you, go to sleep again, etc. This is
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:09:33 +
Lukasz Sokol el.es...@gmail.com wrote:
I got :
dpkg: error processing fpc-src_2.6.4-140420_i386.deb (--install):
trying to overwrite
'/usr/share/fpcsrc/2.6.4/packages/postgres/src/postgres3.pp', which is also
in package fpc-source-2.6.4
On 26/02/15 11:12, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:09:33 +
Lukasz Sokol el.es...@gmail.com wrote:
I got :
dpkg: error processing fpc-src_2.6.4-140420_i386.deb (--install):
trying to overwrite
'/usr/share/fpcsrc/2.6.4/packages/postgres/src/postgres3.pp', which is also
28 matches
Mail list logo
