From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,371144ace2969d7e
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: C++ primer on multithreading
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <iomdg2$h3t$1@dont-email.me>
 <b580ca70-3401-4bf5-9700-663201657395@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>
 <iomlk6$hii$1@dont-email.me> <9014siefelqm$.18a5dek2p9s4h$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4c5fb8d6-7785-4c9f-bcf0-2bf6b3bb2cb0@e26g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
 <1fr5ppc41ca7u.1oh598fh7fh9w.dlg@40tude.net>
 <f4569e31-4f53-4a86-a809-0553c0a19495@p6g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 08:51:40 +0200
Message-ID: <xc0njr6l0g5g$.mhidf5rsyq80.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Apr 2011 08:51:40 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: b2a7d563.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=kRf\c8AeX[9d8Nb@@ZG@b=4IUK<Cl32<14Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;:USWjSLAc93[6LHn;2LCV>[<mhadbfdU;4DZ<f[]4FM3cKcoDh;hnK8
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19002
Date: 2011-04-23T08:51:40+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:45:02 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Sobczak wrote:

> On Apr 22, 10:38�am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> wrote:
> 
>>> What "pulse event"? They are not needed at all.
>>
>> Pulse event is an event reset automatically after notification all waiting
>> threads.
> 
> That's why they are not needed here. After putting new item to the
> queue (or removing one item - as already said, these are symmetric
> problems), you need to wake up only one waiting thread, not all of
> them.

For that you need a queue of threads rather than or additionally to the
queue of items and resume/suspend method instead of events. This is a
different approach, which I had difficulties with.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de