Re: [AD] yield_timeslice

[Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> I remember, there was some doubts here about changing the behavior of
> yield_timeslice, and similiar thoughts about it are present on
> allegro.cc: http://www.allegro.cc/forums/view_thread.php?_id=338662

The change had been recognized as controversial before he was made, no doubt 
about that, so there is no surprise here.  Harsh reactions were expected.

But is there any really valid argument apart from "the function doesn't do 
anymore what its name suggests it does"?

> And when I asked Peter in #allegro what he thinks, he refused to give a
> clear answer. Here the relevant logs: :)
>
> <networm> tjaden: do you also think yield_timeslice shouldn't give up
>           CPU time, like it does in 4.1.13 now?
> <tjaden> networm, leave me out of this :-)
> ...
> <tjaden> i hate computers; i'm going to be a monk

Peter's wisdom is legendary :-)

> So now, I'd tend to change back to the old behavior of yield_timeslice,
> and provide an al_idle or sleep_timeslice, which would be also used
> inside Allegro in place of yield_timeslice. (al_sleep I don't like
> anymore since there's already rest.)

I'm personally still balancing.  The only thing I'm sure of for the time 
being is that the behaviour should be consistent across all platforms.

-- 
Eric Botcazou