@Vincent
thanks for your detailed reply :)
@All
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 11:34, Andreas Berger wrote:
save and restore the floating point unit. I will need to do this for
FPC, so if someone knows how to save and restore the FPU, I would
apreciate the help.
F(
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 11:34, Andreas Berger wrote:
> save and restore the floating point unit. I will need to do this for
> FPC, so if someone knows how to save and restore the FPU, I would
> apreciate the help.
F(X)SAVE/F(X)RSTOR
The X-Versions are more efficient, but only available on newe
On 12 jul 2006, at 13:00, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
"sched_yield()"? Seems to be POSIX, so I suppose it's available on
most
Unices.
Indeed also exists on Mac OS X.
Jonas
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freep
Since Dos can have multiple ways of multitasking (it could e.g. also plug in
to DV or Win3.x or TopView via int 2FH etc) this model seems advisable to me.
I assume you are implementing a basic fixed timeslicer? What are you going
to use it for btw? This because DV/X (which is free nowadays) a
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 11:10, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > > > spinning loops on Mac OS X, so maybe sleep(0) is the same.
> > >
> > > Do you know a correct way of doing this on *nix?
> >
> > "sched_yield()"? Seems to be POSIX, so I suppose it's available on
> > most Unices.
>
> Yes, and not so
> > > spinning loops on Mac OS X, so maybe sleep(0) is the same.
> >
> > Do you know a correct way of doing this on *nix?
>
> "sched_yield()"? Seems to be POSIX, so I suppose it's available on most
> Unices.
Yes, and not so recent ('93) that it is risky. At least FreeBSD seems to have
it.
_
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 10:57, Tomas Hajny wrote:
> I certainly don't know a general solution for *nix. However, even old
> "single-task" DOS provides such a function and it's a great help that
> can be provided by programmer to scheduler in the underlying OS, so
> *nix systems should provide su
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 09:58, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > On 12 jul 2006, at 11:25, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> >
> > sleep(0) is quite bad, because it may not necessarily give up any
> > timeslice. At least very short nanosleeps seem to be implemented as
> > spinning loops on Mac OS X, so may
Marco van de Voort wrote:
>> On 12 jul 2006, at 11:25, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>>
>> > I doubt it. Note that it also probably needs enhancing of the
>> > threadinterface with a giveuptimeslice functionality, something for
>> > which
>> > now sleep(0) is abused.
>>
>> sleep(0) is quite bad, becaus
> On 12 jul 2006, at 11:25, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> > I doubt it. Note that it also probably needs enhancing of the
> > threadinterface with a giveuptimeslice functionality, something for
> > which
> > now sleep(0) is abused.
>
> sleep(0) is quite bad, because it may not necessarily give
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 09:15, Tomas Hajny wrote:
> Well, multitasking <> multithreading. I'm not sure if DV or Win 3.x
> provide special multithreading support for DOS applications...
Nope, not really (at least for Win3.x). There are some services to aid
multi-tasking-aware applications at th
Marco van de Voort wrote:
>> Marco van de Voort wrote:
.
.
>> However, it certainly depends on whether a general solution (not
>> requiring special support like DV, etc.) is really feasible and
>> practical.
>
> I doubt it. Note that it also probably needs enhancing of the
> threadinterface with
On 12 jul 2006, at 11:25, Marco van de Voort wrote:
I doubt it. Note that it also probably needs enhancing of the
threadinterface with a giveuptimeslice functionality, something for
which
now sleep(0) is abused.
sleep(0) is quite bad, because it may not necessarily give up any
timeslice.
> Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > me.
> > I assume you are implementing a basic fixed timeslicer? What are you
> > going
> > to use it for btw? This because DV/X (which is free nowadays) afaik gives
> > you preemptive scheduling on Dos.
>
> Well, multitasking <> multithreading. I'm not sure if DV
Marco van de Voort wrote:
>> >> I need to implement some simple threading in a DOS application I am
>> >> writing with FPC. What I need to know is the following:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Does FPC protect it's stack or can I allocate memory from the heap
>> >> and point SS and ESP to it for the threads stack.
> >> I need to implement some simple threading in a DOS application I am
> >> writing with FPC. What I need to know is the following:
> >>
> >> 1) Does FPC protect it's stack or can I allocate memory from the heap
> >> and point SS and ESP to it for the threads stack.
> >>
> >
> > I believe
I need to implement some simple threading in a DOS application I am
writing with FPC. What I need to know is the following:
1) Does FPC protect it's stack or can I allocate memory from the heap
and point SS and ESP to it for the threads stack.
I believe the latter is correct (except th
On 11 Jul 06, at 15:14, Andreas Berger wrote:
> I need to implement some simple threading in a DOS application I am
> writing with FPC. What I need to know is the following:
>
> 1) Does FPC protect it's stack or can I allocate memory from the heap
> and point SS and ESP to it for the threads st
18 matches
Mail list logo
