On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Michael Menegakis wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Michael Menegakis wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Michael Menegakis wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Michael Menegakis wrote:
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Michael Menegakis wr
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Michael Menegakis wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Michael Menegakis wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Michael Menegakis wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Michael Menegakis wrote:
to lock rd_buffer
>>>
>>> More like the whole functio
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Michael Menegakis wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Michael Menegakis wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Michael Menegakis wrote:
>>> to lock rd_buffer
>>
>> More like the whole function from the inside now that I think about it
>
> Sorry for the spa
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Michael Menegakis wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Michael Menegakis wrote:
>> to lock rd_buffer
>
> More like the whole function from the inside now that I think about it
Sorry for the spam. For future reference it seems that to make it
thread safe you'd
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Michael Menegakis wrote:
> to lock rd_buffer
More like the whole function from the inside now that I think about it
___
ioquake3 mailing list
ioquake3@lists.ioquake.org
http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioqua
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Michael Menegakis wrote:
> If not, which variable to we lock to make it?
Nevermind. I believe it isn't and one would have to lock rd_buffer
which resides in it for avoiding simultaneous writes. Though I'd
welcome any objections.
If not, which variable to we lock to make it?
___
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.
