Hello again, Am 07.04.2013 16:31, schrieb Adam Reichold: > Hello, > > Am 07.04.2013 16:13, schrieb Albert Astals Cid: >> El Dissabte, 6 d'abril de 2013, a les 17:43:54, Adam Reichold va escriure: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Am 06.04.2013 17:14, schrieb Albert Astals Cid: >>>> El Divendres, 5 d'abril de 2013, a les 21:43:28, Adam Reichold va >> escriure: >>>>> Hello again, >>>>> >>>>> I was a bit in a rush at the first try. Sorry for that, I tidied it up >>>>> slightly. >>>> >>>> Maybe we should rename from UTILS_USE_THREAD to UTILS_USE_PTHREAD ? >>>> >>>> Or add a comment somewhere that we only support pthreads for now >>>> somewhere? >>> >>> I would be fine with both. >>> >>> Actually, since this is mostly meant for testing, I would be fine with >>> not making it accessible via autotools or CMake at all, i.e. just add >>> the definition to 'config.h' manually when and if we need it. >> >> Makes sense to me, code-wise what's the difference between this and the code >> Thomas posted in the threading bug? Do you think this is simpler/easier to >> understand? > > Yes, the difference is that I left out the Windows-specific part and > tried to keep it as simple as possible. For example, I think > synchronizing on the job queue is simpler than synchronizing on the > thread state. But of course, my implementation is not very efficient in > terms of performance, just sufficient for testing. > > Best regards, Adam.
Thinking about it some more, there is one reason to keep this accessible via autotools: The 'builder' part of 'regtest' could always build it using pthreads and use something '-j 2' by default to improve the usefulness of the regression tests. But I'd say this is for Carlos to decide. Best regards, Adam. >> Cheers, >> Albert >> >>> >>> Best regards, Adam. >>> >>>> Besides that it looks ok-ish in a quick look. >>>> >>>> Anyone has a comment? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Albert >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, Adam. >>>>> >>>>> Am 05.04.2013 19:27, schrieb Adam Reichold: >>>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> To make it easier for us to test changes w.r.t. to threading, I would >>>>>> propose to commit a simple implementation of threading in 'pdftoppm' to >>>>>> master. >>>>>> >>>>>> The attached patch contains a very simple implementation that is not >>>>>> focused on maximal performance but should suffice to stress the locking >>>>>> inside Poppler's core. I opted to implement only the POSIX approach >>>>>> since I suppose POSIX systems are where most of us test and the code is >>>>>> hopefully simple and short enough not become a maintenance burden. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, Adam. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> poppler mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> poppler mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> poppler mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler >> _______________________________________________ >> poppler mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler >> > _______________________________________________ > poppler mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler > _______________________________________________ poppler mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler
