From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EMjLb-0001Qv-Hn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 05:44:36 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EMjLM-0001NJ-6J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 05:44:17 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EMjLL-00018D-Hx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 05:44:15 -0400 Received: from [64.233.182.199] (helo=nproxy.gmail.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EMjDM-0004lI-UN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 05:36:01 -0400 Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id n15so210426nfc for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 02:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <46d6db660510040235i547ea37aw33965dbe77c0a390@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:35:59 +0200 From: Christian MICHON Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [patch] non-blocking disk IO In-Reply-To: <434242DE.40906@dblab.ece.ntua.gr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <4340D479.7030301@stanfordalumni.org> <434100A3.5030104@dblab.ece.ntua.gr> <46d6db660510030558y3413a698ra74d5a270de58bf2@mail.gmail.com> <43422C99.2010300@stanfordalumni.org> <434242DE.40906@dblab.ece.ntua.gr> Reply-To: Christian MICHON , qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Elefterios Stamatogiannakis , qemu-devel@nongnu.org indeed, this was a quick and dirty hack :) I just managed to compile pthreadGC2 statically... pthread.h has to be modified to include extra PTW32_STATIC_LIB info, like this: #define PTW32_VERSION 2,6,0,0 #define PTW32_VERSION_STRING "2, 6, 0, 0\0" #define PTW32_STATIC_LIB 1 I'll test it later today and will report realistic benchmarks on windows hosts. On 10/4/05, Elefterios Stamatogiannakis wrote: > Thanks for the info. > > >> #ifdef WIN32 > >> void usleep(unsigned long usec) > >> { > >> Sleep(usec/1000); > >> } > >> #endif > >> > > The division "usec/1000" is an expensive operation on any processor. > > Maybe it would be better just to use "_sleep(1)" which is analogous to > usleep(1000) ? > > This is what i did to have it compiled and it worked like a charm. > > teris. > > > -- Christian