Re: [MiNT] Issue with Mint 1.19 and Litchi (maybe solved)

[Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.co.uk>]

Fselect() can be as many as we want, but it's currently limited to 32
because of the bits in a long.

Fpoll() is the modern replacement and currently handles 1024.

Most software today checks for the number of bits select() deal with and
if it isn't sufficient would probably use poll() anyway.

Alan.

On 07/02/15 11:15, markus@mubf.de wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> took that as an occasion for contemplating a bit about the whole
> Fselect() issue.
>
> With MiNT's new "virtually unlimited" number of handles, wouldn't it
> only consequent to consider Fselect() in its current implementation
> broken by design?
>
> I mean, with MiNT able to hold (approximately) 240 open handles
> (that's at least what my tests on Aranym showed) and Fselect() only
> able to listen on 26 of them, isn't that asking for trouble anyway?
>
> I'd like to propose to revert recent Fselect() changes (to avoid
> breaking "old" software) and introduce a new Fselect2() that better
> handles MiNT's new capabilities. This should at least allow to pass
> the (arbitrary) number of handles to listen on:
>
> int Fselect2(int nfds, long *readfds, long *writefds, long *exceptfds,
> ?? *timeout);
>
> Instead of passing long bitmaps by value, it would pass pointers to
> long arrays with nfds indicating the length of these. Whether timeout
> would be some kind of struct pointer or not is debatable (at least it
> would allow mintlib's select() implementation to become more UNIXish).
> A struct pointer would make the semantics of "wait forever" (pointer
> is NULL) and "immediately return" (values are 0) clear.
>
> Fselect() would than work as before, Fselect2() could be used by (new)
> mintlib to better support select().
>
> My own knowledge of MiNT internals are (embarassingly) minimal but I
> could at least offer to try and put a prototype implementation
> together if anybody is willing to help.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Markus
>
>
> Am 06.02.2015 um 13:31 schrieb Vincent Rivière:
>> So I really wonder if keeping the new Fselect(1,...) behaviour is a
>> good thing...
>>
>
> P.S.: this is a resend from a message sent this morning that
> apparently didn't make it to the list. Apologize in advance if it
> appears twice now for some reason.
>
>