# To subscribers of the xforms list from David Paigen <paigen@heathen.com> :
> # Steve Lamont <spl@eggshell.ucsd.edu> :
> > David Paigen:
> > I re-installed my binary version of 0.88 (I have no source) and
> > tested it and got over 6000 idle calls per second. So something
> > strange is going on. There is clearly a major difference between
> > the 0.88 idle call handling and the 1.0 idle call handling. I do
> > not have source to 0.88, so I cannot explore what asyn_io.c is
> > doing.
> >
> > Is this a bug? Is this a configuration issue? Can someone who has
> > access to both source trees run a diff for me?
>
> My guess is that what's happening is that when 0.88 was fed a zero it
> accepted it, rather than bumping it up. That would basically cause
> the idle loop to go as fast as its little legs could carry it.
OK.
> I suppose the next thing to try is to change fl_set_idle_delta() to
> accept zero as a valid delta. I don't think that should break
> anything. Give it a try.
I will go try that.
> Since this behavior is not documented, I'd be inclined to consider it
> a bug rather than a feature. I can't imagine how it could be a
> configuration problem.
Because non-blocking io is one of the areas where different unixes
tend to be different. I'll vote for this as a bug because it prevents
me from using the CPU idle time without resorting to threads. That
would have consequences on the portability and extendibility of my
software. :-(
I'll send out a note in a couple of hours about the patch.
-David Paigen
_________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send the message "unsubscribe" to
xforms-request@bob.usuhs.mil or see
http://bob.usuhs.mil/mailserv/xforms.html
XForms Home Page: http://world.std.com/~xforms
List Archive: http://bob.usuhs.mil/mailserv/list-archives/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 06 2002 - 13:16:06 EST