Re: [AD] X: using threads for asynchronous activity

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

George Foot <gfoot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> So, does anyone have any opinions on whether we should move X
> Allegro to a threaded system?  I think making it support both
> threaded and non-threaded systems would probably be too
> complicated to be worthwhile, but it may be possible.

I would like to see SIGALRM freed up for the user.  If we can get
better timer accuracy and cleaner code while we're at it, I'm all
for it.  As you say, the problem is systems without threads -- are
there any?  A followup question might be: any worth supporting?  :-)

> Overall I think if we go threaded we might as well do it properly.

I agree.  If we try to support both methods, user code which wants
to use SIGALRM will need to check which method is being employed,
and that's not very good.

-- 
MUSTGO (MUST go), n.  Any item of food that has been sitting in the
refrigerator so long that it has become a science project.
	-- Rich Hall, "Sniglets"