On Tuesday 23 March 2004 6:55 pm, John Levon wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 06:46:12PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Why don't you like
while (!finished) {
someNonTrivialFunction();
if (fl_check_forms() == FL_EVENT) {
...
}
}
(I guess
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 6:55 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 06:46:12PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Why don't you like
> > while (!finished) {
> > someNonTrivialFunction();
> > if (fl_check_forms() == FL_EVENT) {
> > ...
> > }
> > }
John Levon wrote:
John, have a medal! Thank you!
Does this mean Alfredo doesn't hate me any more?
Because of a medal? I you take your medaled royal ass back here and start
coding I may stop ;-)
Alfredo
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:05:47AM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
John, have a medal! Thank you!
Does this mean Alfredo doesn't hate me any more?
Because of a medal? I you take your medaled royal ass back here and start
coding I may stop ;-)
I'm an award winner, I don't need to
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 01:13:30AM +, John Levon wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:14:57PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
What ever happened to the quote of the month? ;-)
Hmm, I stopped doing it. But I may well restart for my own benefit!
John, have a medal! Thank you!
Does this
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Does this mean Alfredo doesn't hate me any more?
I always wondered why Alfredo suddenly played that Hating John part of
the game. He's supposed to be in the Nice Guy camp...
But but but... he started it first when nobody was looking! ;-)
Seriously, are there any news
Tell you what. The amount of time this discussion has taken so far I presume
is comparable to what it takes to use the working and tested QProcess. And
this will work on Windows (for those who compile LyX with Qt/Win) as well.
What's so bad about QProcess?
No offense meant :)
Cheers, Kuba
Kuba Ober wrote:
Tell you what. The amount of time this discussion has taken so far I
presume is comparable to what it takes to use the working and tested
QProcess. And this will work on Windows (for those who compile LyX
with Qt/Win) as well.
What's so bad about QProcess?
You really want
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 10:34 am, Angus Leeming wrote:
Kuba Ober wrote:
Tell you what. The amount of time this discussion has taken so far I
presume is comparable to what it takes to use the working and tested
QProcess. And this will work on Windows (for those who compile LyX
with
John Levon wrote:
>> John, have a medal! Thank you!
>
> Does this mean Alfredo doesn't hate me any more?
Because of a medal? I you take your medaled royal ass back here and start
coding I may stop ;-)
Alfredo
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:05:47AM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> >> John, have a medal! Thank you!
> >
> > Does this mean Alfredo doesn't hate me any more?
>
> Because of a medal? I you take your medaled royal ass back here and start
> coding I may stop ;-)
I'm an award winner, I don't
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 01:13:30AM +, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:14:57PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
> > What ever happened to the quote of the month? ;-)
>
> Hmm, I stopped doing it. But I may well restart for my own benefit!
>
> > John, have a medal! Thank you!
>
>
Andre Poenitz wrote:
>> Does this mean Alfredo doesn't hate me any more?
>
> I always wondered why Alfredo suddenly played that Hating John part of
> the game. He's supposed to be in the Nice Guy camp...
But but but... he started it first when nobody was looking! ;-)
Seriously, are there any
Tell you what. The amount of time this discussion has taken so far I presume
is comparable to what it takes to use the working and tested QProcess. And
this will work on Windows (for those who compile LyX with Qt/Win) as well.
What's so bad about QProcess?
No offense meant :)
Cheers, Kuba
Kuba Ober wrote:
> Tell you what. The amount of time this discussion has taken so far I
> presume is comparable to what it takes to use the working and tested
> QProcess. And this will work on Windows (for those who compile LyX
> with Qt/Win) as well.
>
> What's so bad about QProcess?
You
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 10:34 am, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Kuba Ober wrote:
> > Tell you what. The amount of time this discussion has taken so far I
> > presume is comparable to what it takes to use the working and tested
> > QProcess. And this will work on Windows (for those who compile LyX
> >
John Levon wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:00:22PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
We only need to reap children every 10 minutes or whatever
Then we go back to the timer and the whole thing has been a waste
of time?
Why do you say that? It's completely normal and expected practice.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:53:55AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
I don't think you've read my proposed code. I'm pretty sure it's
Maybe I just misread it (and now it's deleted).
We drop out of the Qt loop to check the sigatomic_t.
If it's set, then we go and reap the child, secure that
John Levon wrote:
Angus, this has *nothing* to do with second signals. Yes, we need
to take care of that issue, but it's not what I'm talking about.
This is about interrupting *non-signal context* code.
Sorry about the tone of that mail. I think I got out of the wrong side
of bed this
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 04:02:55PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Details follow below. Please try and rip it to shreds.
Can't pick a hole in it. Looks fine to me
cheers
john
John Levon wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 04:02:55PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Details follow below. Please try and rip it to shreds.
Can't pick a hole in it. Looks fine to me
Magic.
One thing I have been wondering about though.
Why don't you like
while (!finished) {
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 7:13 pm, John Levon wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 07:06:30PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood what you wanted to change in Qt. A busy
loop would be one that chewed CPU despite no events arriving.
This is what seems to happen in the
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 07:38:48PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Me too, if only because hacking into the Qt event loop turns out to be
a right PITA.
Nonetheless, playing devil's advocate, why is Strategy 2 better than
the existing strategy of using a Timeout to reap the children also?
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 8:07 pm, John Levon wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 07:38:48PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Me too, if only because hacking into the Qt event loop turns out
to be a right PITA.
Nonetheless, playing devil's advocate, why is Strategy 2 better
than the existing
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 07:06:30PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood what you wanted to change in Qt. A busy
loop would be one that chewed CPU despite no events arriving.
This is what seems to happen in the Qt-equivalent. We get a
never-ending stream of calls to
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 06:46:12PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Why don't you like
while (!finished) {
someNonTrivialFunction();
if (fl_check_forms() == FL_EVENT) {
...
}
}
(I guess that this is what you call a 'busy loop'?)
I think this is
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:14:57PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
What ever happened to the quote of the month? ;-)
Hmm, I stopped doing it. But I may well restart for my own benefit!
John, have a medal! Thank you!
Does this mean Alfredo doesn't hate me any more?
john
--
Spammers get STABBED
John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:00:22PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> > We only need to reap children every 10 minutes or whatever
>>
>> Then we go back to the timer and the whole thing has been a waste
>> of time?
>
> Why do you say that? It's completely normal and expected
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:53:55AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> I don't think you've read my proposed code. I'm pretty sure it's
Maybe I just misread it (and now it's deleted).
> > We drop out of the Qt loop to check the sigatomic_t.
> > If it's set, then we go and reap the child, secure
John Levon wrote:
> Angus, this has *nothing* to do with "second signals". Yes, we need
> to take care of that issue, but it's not what I'm talking about.
> This is about interrupting *non-signal context* code.
Sorry about the tone of that mail. I think I got out of the wrong side
of bed this
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 04:02:55PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Details follow below. Please try and rip it to shreds.
Can't pick a hole in it. Looks fine to me
cheers
john
John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 04:02:55PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> Details follow below. Please try and rip it to shreds.
>
> Can't pick a hole in it. Looks fine to me
Magic.
One thing I have been wondering about though.
Why don't you like
while (!finished) {
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 7:13 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 07:06:30PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > > Maybe I misunderstood what you wanted to change in Qt. A "busy
> > > loop" would be one that chewed CPU despite no events arriving.
> >
> > This is what seems to happen in
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 07:38:48PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Me too, if only because hacking into the Qt event loop turns out to be
> a right PITA.
>
> Nonetheless, playing devil's advocate, why is Strategy 2 better than
> the existing strategy of using a Timeout to reap the children also?
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 8:07 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 07:38:48PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Me too, if only because hacking into the Qt event loop turns out
> > to be a right PITA.
> >
> > Nonetheless, playing devil's advocate, why is Strategy 2 better
> > than the
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 07:06:30PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Maybe I misunderstood what you wanted to change in Qt. A "busy
> > loop" would be one that chewed CPU despite no events arriving.
>
> This is what seems to happen in the Qt-equivalent. We get a
> never-ending stream of calls to
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 06:46:12PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Why don't you like
> while (!finished) {
> someNonTrivialFunction();
> if (fl_check_forms() == FL_EVENT) {
> ...
> }
> }
>
> (I guess that this is what you call a 'busy loop'?)
I think
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:14:57PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> What ever happened to the quote of the month? ;-)
Hmm, I stopped doing it. But I may well restart for my own benefit!
> John, have a medal! Thank you!
Does this mean Alfredo doesn't hate me any more?
john
--
"Spammers get
The xforms event loop in my tree now looks like:
while (!finished) {
ForkedcallsController::get().handleCompletedProcesses();
if (fl_check_forms() == FL_EVENT) {
...
}
}
where handleCompletedProcesses() simply checks whether a SIGCHLD
signal has been
The xforms event loop in my tree now looks like:
while (!finished) {
ForkedcallsController::get().handleCompletedProcesses();
if (fl_check_forms() == FL_EVENT) {
...
}
}
where handleCompletedProcesses() simply checks whether a SIGCHLD
signal
Kuba Ober wrote:
The xforms event loop in my tree now looks like:
while (!finished) {
ForkedcallsController::get().handleCompletedProcesses();
if (fl_check_forms() == FL_EVENT) {
...
}
}
where handleCompletedProcesses() simply checks whether a
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 06:54:15PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
It turns out that QEventLoop exists only for Qt = 3.1. I'm running
RH8 here (Qt 3.0.5). For Qt 3.1, the trick seems to be to use a
QTimer with 0 timeout. That *does* work.
Excuse me if I'm misunderstanding, is this going to
John Levon wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 06:54:15PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
It turns out that QEventLoop exists only for Qt = 3.1. I'm running
RH8 here (Qt 3.0.5). For Qt 3.1, the trick seems to be to use a
QTimer with 0 timeout. That *does* work.
Excuse me if I'm misunderstanding,
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:00:22PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
We only need to reap children every 10 minutes or whatever
Then we go back to the timer and the whole thing has been a waste of
time?
Why do you say that? It's completely normal and expected practice.
It is trivially easy to
The xforms event loop in my tree now looks like:
while (!finished) {
ForkedcallsController::get().handleCompletedProcesses();
if (fl_check_forms() == FL_EVENT) {
...
}
}
where handleCompletedProcesses() simply checks whether a SIGCHLD
signal has been
> The xforms event loop in my tree now looks like:
>
> while (!finished) {
> ForkedcallsController::get().handleCompletedProcesses();
> if (fl_check_forms() == FL_EVENT) {
> ...
> }
> }
>
> where handleCompletedProcesses() simply checks whether a SIGCHLD
Kuba Ober wrote:
>> The xforms event loop in my tree now looks like:
>>
>> while (!finished) {
>> ForkedcallsController::get().handleCompletedProcesses();
>> if (fl_check_forms() == FL_EVENT) {
>> ...
>> }
>> }
>>
>> where handleCompletedProcesses()
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 06:54:15PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> It turns out that QEventLoop exists only for Qt >= 3.1. I'm running
> RH8 here (Qt 3.0.5). For Qt < 3.1, the trick seems to be to use a
> QTimer with 0 timeout. That *does* work.
Excuse me if I'm misunderstanding, is this going
John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 06:54:15PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> It turns out that QEventLoop exists only for Qt >= 3.1. I'm running
>> RH8 here (Qt 3.0.5). For Qt < 3.1, the trick seems to be to use a
>> QTimer with 0 timeout. That *does* work.
>
> Excuse me if I'm
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:00:22PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > We only need to reap children every 10 minutes or whatever
>
> Then we go back to the timer and the whole thing has been a waste of
> time?
Why do you say that? It's completely normal and expected practice.
> It is trivially
50 matches
Mail list logo
