Pedro Alves wrote:
> pgeorges wrote:
>
> At http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms913056.aspx
> it is stated that
> "All threads initially start at THREAD_PRIORITY_NORMAL (251)."
>
> Currently I use
> CeSetThreadPriority(GetCurrentThread(), priority);
> where priority is between 248 a
Jacek M. Holeczek wrote:
> please find attached my vision of the "official CeGCC FAQ".
> Please make it public on the CeGCC web page.
> If you don't agree with its form (i.e. you think the "official FAQ"
> should look different), please make it public anyhow, just name
> it "Jacek's CeGCC FAQ".
> H
Pablo Rogina wrote:
> I'm very interested in using cegcc to compile wxWinCE and I aware that
> patches to cegcc were already committed to svn.
>
> Any plans to release a binary build soon?
>
I'm OK with releasing a 0.6. I don't think we have any show
stoppers.
We've had an ABI change to make u
Pedro Alves a écrit :
> However, if you find that you can isolate the parts of
> the code that are critical, it may be better to use a pool
> or a special allocator for the memory management of those
> time critical allocations/objects.
>
> Cheers,
> Pedro Alves
>
>
I made some tests with malloc
Hywel B. Richards wrote:
> Does mingw32ce use a different memory allocation method to cegcc/newlib?
> My guess would be that mingw32ce uses the wince memory allocation
> directly, and that newlib might have it's own memory allocation stuff??
>
> If so, then it seems that the newlib allocator is
Dear All,
I've recently fixed some C++ code so that it will compile with the
mingw32ce flavour of cegcc (I've been using the "normal" cegcc with
newlib before now). I was hoping to remove the dependency on the cegcc
DLLs, and also speed up file opening (the app opens lots and lots of files).
H
I'm very interested in using cegcc to compile wxWinCE and I aware that
patches to cegcc were already committed to svn.
Any plans to release a binary build soon?
Thanks,
Pablo
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
pgeorges wrote:
At http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms913056.aspx
it is stated that
"All threads initially start at THREAD_PRIORITY_NORMAL (251)."
Currently I use
CeSetThreadPriority(GetCurrentThread(), priority);
where priority is between 248 and 254 to run threads in background.
At http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms913056.aspx
it is stated that
"All threads initially start at THREAD_PRIORITY_NORMAL (251)."
Currently I use
CeSetThreadPriority(GetCurrentThread(), priority);
where priority is between 248 and 254 to run threads in background.
If I remember well, thi
Matthew Kille wrote:
> Here's the suggested patch:-
Good thing it's documented:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms834197.aspx
I also needed this for:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2007-11/msg00218.html
I can confirm it makes a difference :-)
Will commit your patch when I get
Hi Guys,
We've noticed there is some difference between thread priority defines
in cegcc's winbase.h header compared to the MS WinCE SDK version. This
had a significant impact on the apparent performance of our software
where new threads were being created using the win32 values.
Here's the su
11 matches
Mail list logo
