Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!emory!hubcap!gatech!mcnc!ecsgate!ecsvax!utoddl From: utoddl@uncecs.edu (Todd M. Lewis) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Task Switching Problem Message-ID: <1990Oct12.203910.18240@uncecs.edu> Date: 12 Oct 90 20:39:10 GMT References: <1990Sep21.180100.28580@uncecs.edu> <14593@cbmvax.commodore.com> <14900@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1990Oct8.152923.1447@uncecs.edu> <14971@cbmvax.commodore.com> Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service Lines: 31 In article <14971@cbmvax.commodore.com> ken@cbmvax.commodore.com (Ken Farinsky - CATS) writes: >In article <1990Oct8.152923.1447@uncecs.edu> utoddl@uncecs.edu writes: >> >>Ground rule double. I don't need the time. And I can fake the Relinquish() >>call with something like {ULONG i; i=tc_Count; while(i==tc_Count);} >>since tc_Count would be updated by tc_Switch(). So I waste a few cycles. > >AACK!!! I hope that this is strictly educational and not a commercial >product! I thought that one of the first rules of software on the >Amiga was: Thou shalt not busy wait. NAK! It is (was) an educational experiment. The code never made it out of my office. It was a monitor for another program (I needed more information about how some tasks were interacting, and this didn't interfere--well it slowed everything down but didn't otherwise alter the sequences) and has already been deleted. It worked quite well, actually. Thanks again for your help. Hmmmm. Would this work? What if I had my task Wait() for some signal, and have the tc_Switch() routine simply signal my task? This should give me the same effect as Relinquish(). Can a tc_xxxxx() routine signal safely? Darn it all--I've got to try this (now that I don't need it anymore, of course). I just love rewriting code I just threw away. _____ | Todd M. Lewis Disclaimer: If you want my employer's ||\/| utoddl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu ideas, you'll have to || || utoddl@ecsvax.bitnet, @unc.bitnet _buy_ them. | || utoddl@next1.mscre.unc.edu |___ ("Prgrms wtht cmmnts r lk sntncs wtht vwls." --TML)