|
output streams vs output ports
Taylor Campbell
(18 Jun 2005 00:26 UTC)
|
|
Re: output streams vs output ports
Michael Sperber
(18 Jun 2005 07:57 UTC)
|
|
Re: output streams vs output ports
Taylor Campbell
(18 Jun 2005 15:17 UTC)
|
|
Re: output streams vs output ports
Michael Sperber
(18 Jun 2005 18:51 UTC)
|
|
Re: output streams vs output ports
Shiro Kawai
(18 Jun 2005 21:06 UTC)
|
|
Re: output streams vs output ports
Michael Sperber
(19 Jun 2005 09:09 UTC)
|
|
Re: output streams vs output ports
Shiro Kawai
(19 Jun 2005 09:41 UTC)
|
|
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (20 Jun 2005 05:41 UTC)
|
|
Re: output streams vs output ports
Shiro Kawai
(20 Jun 2005 09:16 UTC)
|
|
Re: output streams vs output ports
Michael Sperber
(21 Jun 2005 07:43 UTC)
|
|
Re: output streams vs output ports
Shiro Kawai
(21 Jun 2005 08:08 UTC)
|
|
Re: output streams vs output ports
Michael Sperber
(27 Jun 2005 05:45 UTC)
|
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber 20 Jun 2005 05:41 UTC
Shiro Kawai <xxxxxx@lava.net> writes: > Is there a portable way (i.e. can be written in portable C) > to avoid calling synchronization primitives (e.g. pthread_mutex_lock) > if the implementation uses native threads? But if you're using native threads, aren't read(2) and write(2) already thread-safe in some sense? (I really don't know.) That's where most of the potentially expensive synchronization is, anyway. There's a little bit in the streams layer, but I'm not sure avoiding that would be worth the potential pain. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla