On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 10:29 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> But if that's the general idea, I suppose there would be two ways to
> give higher priority to signals/latches that arrive in the same set of
> events: (1) scan the events array twice (for latches then
> connections), or (2) check our pending flags every time through the
> output events loop, at the top, even for connection events (ie just
> move some lines up a bit).
Here's a sketch of the first idea. I also coded up the second idea
(basically: when nevents > 1, behave as though the latch has been set
every time through the loop, and then also check for
WL_SOCKET_ACCEPT), but I'm not sure I like it (it's less clear to
read, harder to explain, and I'm also interested in exploring
alternative ways to receive signals other than with handlers that set
these flags so I'm not sure I like baking in the assumption that we
can test the flags without having received a corresponding event).
I'm going to be AFK for a day or so and I'd like to see if we can
collect some more evidence about this and maybe repro first so I'll
wait for a bit.
