On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:34:41AM -0200, Leandro Lucarella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Hmm, the loops are not polymorphic, so the dynamic_cast will not be helpful.
> > In any case, is_default == (loop_ == ev_default_loop (0)).
>
> They are in the patch I sent =)
> Just for the fork() and dest
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:28:34PM -0700, Tony Arcieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Marc, could you check out the Rubinius code? I know when you looked at Rev
> you spotted some obvious problems right away. If there's a problem with the
> way Rubinius is doing SIGCHLD maybe you could correct it
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:47:33AM -0500, Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> It's O(N) in the number of child watchers, and runs only upon SIGCHLD.
Also, it just occured to me that this is totally misleading:
Your algorithm is O(c²) where c is the number of children in the number
of wa
On Jan 15, 2008 8:17 PM, Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:47:33AM -0500, Chris Shoemaker <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > handler before creating the process, or before the process exits, only
> > > before you poll for more events.
> >
> > I'm glad we finally
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:06:32AM -0200, Leandro Lucarella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Marc Lehmann, el 15 de enero a las 04:13 me escribiste:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 01:35:22PM -0200, Leandro Lucarella <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Since ev_now() not available if EV_MULTIPLICITY is
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:47:33AM -0500, Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > handler before creating the process, or before the process exits, only
> > before you poll for more events.
>
> I'm glad we finally agree, in practice at least.
No, we don't. Your claim was wrong and is wron
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:54:59PM -0500, Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I've narrowed this down considerably by tracing both good and bad
> executions and comparing. I'll comment the differences in the code:
Your test program is still buggy:
> ev_default_fork();
> ev_loop
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:50:34AM -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 05:06:27AM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:56:54AM -0500, Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I believe the attached program demonstrates some bug related to si
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 05:06:27AM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:56:54AM -0500, Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I believe the attached program demonstrates some bug related to signal
> > delivery after a fork.
>
> Oh, what you see is that ev_default_
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:38:54AM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:38:51AM -0500, Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 03:06:41AM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> > Notice that nothing prevents the waitpid from reaping any child at all.
>
>
Marc Lehmann, el 15 de enero a las 08:06 me escribiste:
> > your opinion before deciding what to do with them, and of course, I want
> > to know if there is any interest in merging this to the official libev
> > distribution =)
>
> Yes, there is. Two things are required for inclusion:
>
> a) it s
Marc Lehmann, el 15 de enero a las 04:13 me escribiste:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 01:35:22PM -0200, Leandro Lucarella <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since ev_now() not available if EV_MULTIPLICITY is not defined, it has not
> > much sense having a ev::now() that calls an inexistent ev_now() ;)
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
