Honored Contributor
Honored Contributor<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Matt Nicholas @ Sep 11 2009, 02:04 AM) <{post_snapback}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=23810)</div>
--- Quote Start --- We originally switched to the 300 Hz timer in an attempt to get better granularity on "usleep" calls[/b] --- Quote End --- I suppose it would be better to find a way to avoid the usleep() calls, as doing a tight timing in a user land process is not a good idea. Maybe this can be done by doing an appropriate Kernel driver or by some custom "hardware" IP-core. Do you use the new MMU-enable ,distribution ? Same is based on gcc4 and the thread support is a lot better (working gdb, TLS ("__thread"-keyword), NTPL, ...) There is no FUTEX support yet, but we are working on that issue, and I'll not start my threaded project, before FUTEX is in place. -Michael
