Richard Gaskin wrote:
Phil Davis wrote:
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> Martin Blackman wrote:
>>> Microsoft Vista is classifying my Rev application as 'Not
>>> responding' when it runs a particularly intensive handler.
...
>> Just a hunch, but I wonder if adding "wait 0 with messages" would
>> free up enough clock cycles to let the OS feel more comfortable.
>
> I bet the "with messages" part isn't needed - doesn't that just
> allow UI interaction, which may not be desirable during Martin's
> process? In other words, I don't think it's necessary if you just
> want to free the engine and/or OS to take a breath.
I had picked up the (mis?)impression that the difference with adding
"with messages" is that without it the "wait" stays in Rev's internal
even loop, but with it it makes a call to whatever is the current OS
equivalent of "GetNextEvent".
I wouldn't mind being mistaken, though; it's clumsy syntax.
Anyone here know for sure whether the wait command by itself is
sufficient to free up a call to the OS?
It doesn't. "Wait with messages" does allow a time slice not only for
the IDE but for background processes as well, but I don't know if it
also allows garbage collection in the handler.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [email protected]
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
