On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 04:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Tom Conneely wrote:
> Thanks for your reply, you've given me plenty to think about
>
> On Sep 29, 11:51 pm, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > > My original plan was to have the data processing and data acquisition
> > > functions running in separate processes
I'm posting this last message as I've found the source of my initial
memory leak problem, unfortunately it was an embarrassingly basic
mistake. In my defence I've got a horrible cold, but I'm just making
excuses.
I begin by mallocing the memory, which gives me a pointer "foo" to
that memory:
c
Thanks for your reply, you've given me plenty to think about
On Sep 29, 11:51 pm, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> > My original plan was to have the data processing and data acquisition
> > functions running in separate processes, with a multiprocessing.Queue
> > for passing the raw data packets. The r
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 06:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Tom Conneely wrote:
>
> My original plan was to have the data processing and data acquisition
> functions running in separate processes, with a multiprocessing.Queue
> for passing the raw data packets. The raw data is read in as a char*,
> with a non const
