[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-gnubg] Simple multi-threading...
From: |
Christian Anthon |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-gnubg] Simple multi-threading... |
Date: |
Fri, 5 Jan 2007 15:08:48 +0100 |
One thread per moverecord sounds like a better idea to me. I fear that
the overhead would be too large if threads were used on the 0ply
level, unless you could do some kind of thread sharing.
I have access to a dual core linux machine, so I'm looking forward to
testing the code once it is ported to glib/posix threads. ;)
Christian.
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Simple multi-threading..., (continued)
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Simple multi-threading..., Jonathan Kinsey, 2007/01/09
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Simple multi-threading... Update, Jonathan Kinsey, 2007/01/16
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Simple multi-threading... Update, Ingo Macherius, 2007/01/17
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Simple multi-threading... Update, Christian Anthon, 2007/01/18
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Simple multi-threading... Update, Jonathan Kinsey, 2007/01/19
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Simple multi-threading... Cache, Jonathan Kinsey, 2007/01/22
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Simple multi-threading... Cache, Øystein Johansen, 2007/01/22
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Simple multi-threading... Cache, Jim Segrave, 2007/01/22
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Simple multi-threading... Cache, Jonathan Kinsey, 2007/01/22
Re: [Bug-gnubg] Simple multi-threading..., Øystein Johansen, 2007/01/05
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Simple multi-threading...,
Christian Anthon <=
Re: [Bug-gnubg] Simple multi-threading..., Jim Segrave, 2007/01/05