Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: January 2004:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7229) Re: Re: Freeciv commit: ali: Add macro is_
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7229) Re: Re: Freeciv commit: ali: Add macro is_

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: a-l@xxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7229) Re: Re: Freeciv commit: ali: Add macro is_city_hilited().
From: "Jason Short" <jshort@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:54:43 -0800
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7229 >


>> 2.  Freeciv clients are single-threaded, so there will never be an
>> interrupt to change the value at L1.
>
> We could have one.

Surely we could.  But if a threaded interrupt could ever change the value
of the focus unit, we would need lots of locking everywhere, and neither
form of the code would be safe without locking.

> In PR#4289 Pixel Scroller I set out to introduce a GDK timer with its
> own simple concept of timeslicing to gurantee screen updates every
> ~1/60 second. I would eventually just make sure nothing is changed
> there that I don't have complete control over, rather than using
> mutexes.

Using a GDK timer doesn't add any additional threads.  Nor will it
interrupt existing code with the timer.

GTK/GDK may use extra threads in the backend, but unless you specifically
thread your application this won't affect the program's code.

jason





[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]