On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 12:00:09PM +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
> On Jun7, 2012, at 10:20 , Sandro Santilli wrote:
> > In that case I can understand Tom's advice about providing a callback,
> > and then I would only need to perform the "events flushing" part of
> > from within the callback, and only for windows.
>
> Why would you need a signal handler in the library at all, then? Just
> test the same flags that CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS does in the callback, and
> call your interrupt request method if they indicate "abort". (Or, slightly
> cleaner maybe, allow the callback to abort processing by returning false)
I'm just afraid that invoking a callback (from a library to user code)
could be significantly slower than simply lookup a variable, especially
if the interruption checking is performed very frequently. But maybe I'm
being overparanoid.
--strk;
,------o-. | __/ | Delivering high quality PostGIS 2.0 ! | / 2.0 | http://strk.keybit.net -
http://vizzuality.com`-o------'