It isn't a real problem. SDL_WaitEvent() has to use a loop, too.
As you can see in the source:
int SDL_WaitEvent (SDL_Event *event)
{
while ( 1 ) {
SDL_PumpEvents();
switch(SDL_PeepEvents(event, 1, SDL_GETEVENT, SDL_ALLEVENTS)) {
case -1: return 0;
case 1: return 1;
case 0: SDL_Delay(10);
}
}
}
I think, it would be best to maintain the original timings and sleep for
10 ms.
Patric
Ivan Z. Ganza schrieb:
> Yes it sounds like pollEvent() would be better here. The only problem
> is that it will eat much or all of the CPU in the loop unless we sleep
> some between calls. Perhaps a configurable param?
>
> -Ivan/
>
> Patric Rufflar wrote:
>
>
>>Hello List,
>>
>>I am currently having problems stopping the EventManager thread in
>>some cases. It seems that the native call to waitEvent() cannot be
>>interrupted by calling interrupt() of the thread.
>>
>>I think using pollEvent() would be better here (because it is already
>>an own thread) and will fix some problems.
>>
>>What do you think about it?
>>
>>Best Regards
>>Patric
>>
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------
>>This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
>>Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
>>and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
>>_______________________________________________
>>sdljava-users mailing list
>>sdl...@li...
>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdljava-users
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
> Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
> and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
> _______________________________________________
> sdljava-users mailing list
> sdl...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdljava-users
>
>
|
