On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Michael Menegakis <arx...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Ben Noordhuis <i...@bnoordhuis.nl> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 23:45, Michael Menegakis <arx...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> It's not easy to make something on ioquake3 thread safe. e.g. Whenever >>> i want to print something from it I completely avoid Com_Printf (since >>> it's massively thread unsafe recursively) and only write on a mutex >>> protected 'to print' variable. >> >> Pro tip: have your worker thread put strings in a mutex-protected >> circular buffer or linked list and let the main thread print them. >> >> Ideally, worker threads only process data and leave it to the main >> thread to interpret the results (translation vs printing in this >> case). > > I currently have it on a single char* variable. Surprisingly, this > 'single element buffer' doesn't fill up easily. Then again, computers > are fast:) > > (Of course, I would replace it with an array of say 4, if it deems necessary).
I should point out that while that may be programmatically safe (the last just gets erased, it doesn't overflow anything), it may be bad design especially if one "prints" more than one things in the same cycle. It is design-safe for a 'google translate' outcome since the internet is slow but even there, two 'prints' on the same cycle may make the first one lost. _______________________________________________ ioquake3 mailing list ioquake3@lists.ioquake.org http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl.
