On Monday, 30 September 2019 08:05:23 PDT Ola Røer Thorsen wrote:
> man. 30. sep. 2019 kl. 16:48 skrev Thiago Macieira <
>
> thiago.macie...@intel.com>:
> > It's just wrong to use it. Just like QThread::{,m,u}sleep. Don't use them.
>
> What's wrong with the sleep functions in particular? Are they worse than
> calling for example unistd.h's "usleep" or
> "std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(x));"?
The problem with the sleep functions is that they sleep for an amount of time
different than the actual amount of time that you needed to sleep for.
Note: *needed* to sleep for, not *coded* for. Pretty much any time span
different from 0 is wrong in at least one circumstance: either you're sleeping
too little, in which case you woke the system up early and are consuming CPU
time and battery, or you slept too much and you delayed processing some
incoming event.
Usually, it's both: you wake up early, consume battery, handle no events, then
go back to sleep. Then the event you needed to handle arrives while you're
still sleeping.
Don't sleep with a timeout. Sleep until *exactly* your event arrives, no
sooner and no later.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel System Software Products
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
