On Friday, August 30, 2002, at 03:37 , Skip Montanaro wrote: > > Greg> Could you have just one ticker, instead of one per thread? > > That would make ticker really count down checkinterval ticks. Also, of > possible interest is this declaration and comment in longobject.c: > > static int ticker; /* XXX Could be shared with ceval? */ > > Any time C code would want to read or update ticker, it would have the > GIL, > right? Not if the idea that lead to this thread (clearing ticker if something is put in things_to_do) is implemented, because we may be in an interrupt routine at the time we fiddle things_to_do. And I don't think we can be sure that even clearing is guaranteed to work (if another thread is halfway a load-decrement-store sequence the clear could be lost). -- - Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com> http://www.cwi.nl/~jack - - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman -
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4