On 20/12/2008, at 5:10 PM, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:44:07PM +, James Mansion > wrote:
because the design decision to have the multiple-init bug
undetectable is
effectively made. I'm just objecting to Mr Lehman's
characteristically
condescending and heavy-handed 'i
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:44:07PM +, James Mansion
wrote:
> because the design decision to have the multiple-init bug undetectable is
> effectively made. I'm just objecting to Mr Lehman's characteristically
> condescending and heavy-handed 'its not possible'.
You'd be well-advised to read
That part was left as an exercise for the reader I
thought it was fairly obvious the pitfalls of this approach.
Anyway, good to have it in black and white :)
Regards,
Samuel
On 20/12/2008, at 11:33 AM, James Mansion wrote:
Space Ship Traveller wrote:
This code is very quickl
Space Ship Traveller wrote:
This code is very quickly thrown together to show a basic idea, it
obviously won't work in its current form.
And you have fallen directly foul of the point that Marc made about that
being unreliable. You have to
ensure that 'initialized' is 0 before the first call
This is a bit of a pointless discussion.
If you have a problem managing your memory, why don't you write your
own wrapper.
struct my_ev_watcher
{
int initialized;
ev_timer timer;
};
void my_ev_init_timer (struct my_ev_watcher * w)
{
if (w->initialized)
Brandon Black wrote:
The problem with an initialization flag byte is this then requires
that the memory being passed to the init function be zero-d (or at
least, the flag byte within it be zero-d),
Well, I'd question whether its a problem (certainly not from any performance
perspective) but sin
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 06:19:37PM +0200, Graham Leggett
wrote:
>> Well, upo your ass, go elsewhere then, I won't help you anymore.
>
> As you said, you are starting to get needlessly insulting.
Well, it was correct when I said it, it no longer is correct when you
parrot it.
> Can we keep focus
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:00:53PM +0200, Graham Leggett
wrote:
> In theory, it shouldn't matter how many times you init the timer, a stop
> should stop it.
Unfortunately, the real world works diferently than your theory, and
the designers and authors of libev opted to folow a theory that clos
Marc Lehmann wrote:
And you are starting to get needlessly insulting.
Well, upo your ass, go elsewhere then, I won't help you anymore.
As you said, you are starting to get needlessly insulting.
Can we keep focus on the problem at hand?
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cr
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 06:12:51AM +, James Mansion
wrote:
> That's not necessarily true. Just have a signal byte at a known offset
First of all, please do other people a favour and don't send such horribly
misformatted messages like yours. Remember that other people might want
to read yo
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:52:30AM +0200, Graham Leggett
wrote:
> This is so nineties, seriously :)
And you are starting to get needlessly insulting.
> C is not a difficult language at all, and it doesn't have to be.
Right, but you apparently make it one.
> A well written well structured libr
ryah dahl wrote:
libev is a performance-oriented library; since allocations can be a
bottleneck and can be handled in many different ways, the library uses
a common pattern and gives memory control to the user. Perhaps the
user wants to allocate only a fixed number of watchers statically,
perhap
12 matches
Mail list logo
