| |
> Of course you are right. I think it is a bad programming style not to give
> your program the
ability to terminate but to run in an endless loop. But
This is not true of an embedded system
though which will have to run 'forever'.
> This is, because the work_task thread has a • priority of NORMAL+4. So, the
> main task won't get
any time slice at all.
NO time slice or
just a very small chunk of time?
Also, what priority does this mean main() has? One of the
other suggestions that was given was to just call one of my threads from
main() and let it run as an
infinite loop, ie, it will never return to main(), so main() can never exit.
This would not work if
main() has a very low priority or even no time slice at all??
Can anyone recommend any good
books or websites on the subjects that have been touched on this thread
(sic), ie, memory
management, threads etc.
Best regards, mike
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More on threads
|
| (...) Digging through tm.c gave me the impression, that main will indeed get no time slice. So I wrote another test program: ---...--- #include <conio.h> #include <unistd.h> pid_t worker; int work_task(int argc, char *argv[]); int main() { int i; i (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | More on threads
|
| (...) Of course you are right. I think it is a bad programming style not to give your program the ability to terminate but to run in an endless loop. But what is the penalty for this bad style? I've done some investigations and here are the results: (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
