Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vtvsq4$172j8$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: signalling a condvar from inside vs. signalling a condvar von outside Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 03:10:10 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 26 Message-ID: <vtvsq4$172j8$1@dont-email.me> References: <vte0g6$pmgv$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vtef76$16guv$1@dont-email.me> <vtgloc$36urv$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vth3gt$3j0qm$1@dont-email.me> <vth5ig$3kqh7$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vthb0p$3p9fh$1@dont-email.me> <vtl9ii$3dqu3$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vtmapb$bjcc$1@dont-email.me> <vtnam3$1c6fn$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vtpcnt$384n4$1@dont-email.me> <vtpu86$3qnsh$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vtq3dt$3vg77$1@dont-email.me> <vtqo57$hi7r$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vtrf3u$15mgp$1@dont-email.me> <vtsph1$2d55o$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vtu9un$3mhje$1@dont-email.me> <vtub8i$3o27s$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vtvq5i$149vk$1@dont-email.me> <vtvqd0$149h7$2@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 12:10:12 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aef3828e034e8f533cd77d3f4a64e9bf"; logging-data="1280616"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182sy0XVPLLGeXmpM0506b+RL/Vhqz4hbE=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:jIxKWWLjmE09KDUIK0dv/Yv1B7c= In-Reply-To: <vtvqd0$149h7$2@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 2819 On 4/19/2025 2:29 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 19.04.2025 um 11:25 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > >>> But there's one interesting fact to learn at last: broadcasting is more >>> efficient than unicasting. > >> Ugggg... Only broadcast when you absolutely have to! Not willy nilly. >> Argh! Anyway... > > That's not true. Uggg... A broadcast is a special case. Well, when would you use a broadcast vs a single signal? Ugggg... > As you can see from my source I'm broadcasting when > there are more or equal elements than waiting threads. That's much > more efficient. > And I don't wanted to say that broadcasting should be preferred > mostly but I've measured with Windows and Linux that if broadcasting > is eligible in the mentioned way it's more efficient even when there's > only a single waiting threads. > You should have dropped your objection if you first read my source. >