El Diumenge, 7 d'abril de 2013, a les 16:31:52, Adam Reichold va escriure: > 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.
Thomas would you be OK if we merge this patchset or you'd prefer yours (more complex?) to be in? Cheers, Albert > > 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
