Thread: Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance

> > Here's another version of this patch ;-) I've based it on
> your patch,
> > so the changes to ovalue etc should sitill be there.
>
> This looks fairly reasonable to me, but I'm feeling a bit
> gun-shy after the previous fiasco.  Before we consider
> applying it so late in beta, I'd like to get Merlin or
> another one of the win32 hackers to sign off on the patch too.

Definitly agreed. I'd like to see both Merlin and Andrew run through the
same test suites they did before. And it wouldn't hurt to get a test run
on a differnet OS - so far I've only tested on XP SP2. I doubt there
would be OS specific differences, but jus tin case...

//Magnus

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> > > Here's another version of this patch ;-) I've based it on
> > your patch,
> > > so the changes to ovalue etc should sitill be there.
> >

I didn't find a thread saying above? Something wrong with my newsreader?

Regards,
Qingqing

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> If we're going to create a separate thread, there is no need to deal
> with APCs at all, I beleive. We can just use the existing timeout
> functionality in WaitForSingleObjectEx(), which simplifies the code a
> bit.

[ Finally I copied it from the website. Don't know why I can't find it in
my email reader or news reader. ]

Yeah, this is better.

> PS. Qingqing: it helps at least me if you can post your patch as an
> attached file instead of inline. That makes absolutely sure my mailer
> (yeah, I know...) doesn't get a chance to break the lines.

Yeah, several times I want to submit with an attachment, but I got an
error message saying that "I can't post a binary to a non-binary group".
If any one happens to use pine newsreader and know the solution, please
let me know, thanks.

Regards,
Qingqing