From: Andrew Schweitzer (a.schweitzer.grps_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-03 07:55:14
Christopher Kohlhoff wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> --- Andrew Schweitzer <a.schweitzer.grps_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>I sort of expect I've missed something, but it looks like dead
>>code. with the prescence of the interrupter and its dummy
>>socket, the socket list will never be null. Also, if they were
>>null, I'm not sure Sleep would work very well. For one thing,
>>it's not interruptable, so if the only thing is a large timer,
>>any new additions of sockets or timers would have to wait for
>>the large timer to complete before they could be added. For
>>another, it looks like if there were no timers running, it
>>would essentially be polling 1/ms for sockets + timers.
> The socket_ops::select() function is also used to implement the
> blocking deadline_timer::wait() operation, which doesn't pass
> any sockets to select at all.
Ah yes, got it. Thanks.
> But in terms of the select_reactor, you're right that the
> particular code path isn't used (and in fact the compiler ought
> to be able to easily optimise it out).
Sounds good. Even if it doesn't optimise it, it's probably trivial to
check 3 null values.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk