[SDL] no SDL_YieldThread() function?
bob at redivi.com
Sun Mar 6 23:25:49 PST 2005
On Mar 7, 2005, at 1:33 AM, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
>> Nope, that's an undocumented side effect of the way the underlying
>> Win32 call works.
>> For example, SDL_Delay(0) on Linux does precisely nothing. (At least,
>> that was the case last time I checked.)
> David's right, but an SDL_Delay(10) (or perhaps even an
> SDL_Delay(100), depending on the thread in question) works wonders in
> most places.
Since SDL only supports pre-emptive multithreading, the OS is already
going to switch between threads as best as it sees fit. What use is
delaying for some arbitrary fixed time going to do, other than make
sure that some CPU slices end up somewhere else? Also, delaying for
some fixed time interval is going to mean different things to different
machines. A slower machine is going to want less of a delay and a
faster machine is going to want more.
If you design your application to be event driven, so that it's
processing when it needs to be, and sleeping otherwise (waiting for an
event or some specific time), then you don't have to worry about this
because you're using the CPU only when you need it.
More information about the SDL