Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Chris M. Thomasson" Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Python recompile Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 14:40:23 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <20250304092827.708@kylheku.com> <871pv861ht.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20250308192940.00001351@yahoo.com> <20250309012626.00001276@yahoo.com> <20250309112807.0000489d@yahoo.com> <20250310152000.00004955@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 22:40:24 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ad095adaf9d64c9163b0578a2211f0c8"; logging-data="1653743"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/jqPtYIh/LEKCU+d+amF5pdFVIdQFtlfU=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:UWGAbgvbmxXyZI4D4hm9R/EuGPo= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 2905 On 3/10/2025 2:36 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 15:20:00 +0200, Michael S wrote: > >> Similar to poll(), yes. Not so similar to super-ugly select(). I >> hope that Unix people stopped using select in new programs two or >> more decades ago. > > Seems like WaitForMultipleObjects is more similar to select() than > poll(), though: it has a fixed limit (MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS) on the > number of objects you can wait on at once. > >> But WaitForMultipleObjects can do things that poll can not, like >> waiting on semaphore or on event or on thread (for completion, which >> POSIX people, in their eternal fondness for idiotic names call >> 'join'). [...] For some damn reason I am remembering that the array that WaitForMultipleObjects waits on should be "shifted" or even randomized per call in a server loop that is using EVENTS. IIRC, this was way back in late 90's and early 2000's.