Article View: net.micro.mac
Article #7235Re: BYTE issue of September 86 focuses on the 68000
From: Mike Farren
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1986 21:06
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1986 21:06
19 lines
1474 bytes
1474 bytes
In article <3681@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes:
>
>...I don't think that a polled event loop has to be "much less" efficient.
>When there is no event for the process, GetNextEvent will just return a
>null event. The process would most likely then just call GetNextEvent
>again. This is less efficient, but not by much.
>
By a lot. Remember, all of the time that's being used by your process to
poll GetNextEvent, PLUS all of the time that is taken to do a context switch
to allow your process to run, would ALL be available for some other process
to use if you weren't polling, but instead sleeping in a Wait() state.
--
----------------
"... if the church put in half the time on covetousness
Mike Farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..."
hoptoad!farren Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1162@hoptoad.uucp>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!hoptoad!farrenReferences:
<3868@ut-ngp.UUCP> <3374@ism780c.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!hoptoad!farren From: farren@hoptoad.uucp (Mike Farren) Newsgroups: net.micro.mac,net.micro.amiga Subject: Re: BYTE issue of September 86 focuses on the 68000 Message-ID: <1162@hoptoad.uucp> Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 17:06:17 EDT Article-I.D.: hoptoad.1162 Posted: Mon Sep 29 17:06:17 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 1-Oct-86 01:26:59 EDT References: <3868@ut-ngp.UUCP> <3374@ism780c.UUCP> Reply-To: farren@hoptoad.UUCP (Mike Farren) Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco Lines: 19