On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 12:40:22PM -0400, "Mikhail T."
<mi+t...@aldan.algebra.com> wrote:
> >And what is this "BSD" thing? libev obviously works quite fine on BSDs, so
> >you can't mean that.
> I was talking about watching a directory for changes. Using libevent
> on BSD, I can get notified, when a directory is accessed or modified.
> I can not do the same with libev, evidently, which makes it worse (in
> this particular regard) than libevent.
Bullshit. Libev gives you I/O readyness notificataions as defined by POSIX.
All you have shown is that libevent, when you use edge triggering,
fundamentally changes behaviour by not providing those anymore. It's also
quite likely that libevent will _not_ change behaviour when it isn't using
kqueue as backend, so the behaviour you see isn't even guaranteed by
libevent, it is simply spurious.
That's simply a bug in libevent that libev does not have.
Now, I am not terribly fazed by this bug, as most likely, this is simply
a bug in kqueue itself that breaks ddirectory fds when edge triggering is
used.
Saying libev "does not work on BSD" just means that you don't have a clue
what it is supposed to do, you don't have a clue how I/O readyness works,
and you didn't care to read the documentation of libev.
That's pretty lame for somebody who wants to be taken seriously. But are
you?
> >Sweeping and non-refutable (because they lack substance) statements like
> >yours are dangerously close to trolling. It's not appreciated, so back up,
> >or shut up.
> Well, "trolling" was what Tony engaged in, when he posted the
> above-quoted line -- preceded with the even more obnoxious "cool
> story". If you tolerated that, you shouldn't really be criticizing my
> manners either.
I agree that his comment was pointless. However, it's you who started
it: You came here with vague claims about problems, and when explained
that there aren't any, you continued with vague accusations of problems,
and when told that you need to explain yourself, you just kept quite
instead of clarifying.
I am still waiting for an explanation, but I am not holding my breath.
This is why I can tolerate Tony's comment, but not yours. You shouldnÄt
be surprised if people treat you like you treat other people.
> That said, having encountered developers, who seriously believe, a
> compiler warning is the compiler's own problem -- to be remedied by
> removing -Werror -- nothing else can surprise me this week.
That's just more FUD. You have been told that the warning is
spurious. It's at best a bug in your compiler, except that GCC doesn't
claim that its warnings are perfect, so it isn't even a bug in GCC.
Now, since you are so full of yourself, care to explain what libev should
do to silence the warning? The code is correct, after all. And all you
have shown so far is that you don't even understand what the compiler
warning says.
But, again, I am not holding my breath waiting for an explanation.
> Lastly, it seems, libfam (FAM or Gamin, rather) does exactly what I
> need -- cross platform -- so I will stop bothering you now. Have a
> good weekend.
One troll less it seems.
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schm...@schmorp.de
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
_______________________________________________
libev mailing list
libev@lists.schmorp.de
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libev
