Cuberite Forum
Random Chitchat 2012-2016 - Printable Version

+- Cuberite Forum (https://forum.cuberite.org)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-9.html)
+--- Forum: Off Topic Discussion (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Random Chitchat 2012-2016 (/thread-434.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487

RE: What we're doing - NiLSPACE - 08-19-2013

So today I tested the cWorld::DoExplosiontAt function with the cLineBlockTracer. This is the result:

RE: What we're doing - bearbin - 08-19-2013

Cool!

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 08-19-2013

I knew there would be cool stuff Wink
Now make it animate in time - napalm throwerBig Grin

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 08-19-2013

I'm having trouble with Linux's sem_timedwait() function. For some reason it returns a "timeout" immediately after being called with a 0.5sec timeout. Therefore the DeadlockDetect thread misfires on Linux.

Does anyone have any experience with this?
For those of you with Linux, can you compile and run this quick test program?
#include <time.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
#include <errno.h>

int main(void)
{
    sem_t sem;
    if (sem_init(&sem, 0, 0))
    {
        printf("sem_init failed\n");
        return 1;
    }
    timespec timeout;
    timeout.tv_sec = 1;
    timeout.tv_nsec = 500 * 1000 * 1000;
    clock_t Begin = clock();
    int res = sem_timedwait(&sem, &timeout);
    clock_t End = clock();
    printf("sem_timedwait: %d, errno %d, %llu ticks\n", res, errno, (long long)(End - Begin));
    sem_destroy(&sem);
    return 0;
}
Compile with (assuming test.cpp is the filename):
Code:
g++ test.cpp -lpthread

When run, it should print something like
Code:
sem_timedwait: -1, errno 110, 0 ticks
I'm interested in the results - are you getting zero ticks as well? Where's the bug?

RE: What we're doing - bearbin - 08-20-2013

I get the same as you.
Are the set and nsec values supposed to be different like they are?

110 seems to indicate that it timed out locking the thing. but idk.

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 08-20-2013

It is expected to time out, because no-one is signalling the semaphore, but it is expected to time out after the specified timeout value, which in this case is 1.5 sec (1 sec + 500M nsec). For some reason it "timeouts" immediately.

RE: What we're doing - bearbin - 08-20-2013

Why not try signalling it and see if it works then?

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 08-20-2013

Oh, duh! So stupid, didn't read the docs. The timeout is specifiead absolute, not relative, so it needs to be set to time(NULL) + nsec

RE: What we're doing - bearbin - 08-20-2013

Derp. Great that you got it working then.

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 08-20-2013

Still, some weirdness going on. The test program stops correctly for the 1.5 sec, but still reports 0 ticks. Anyway, it's good enough for me now; I have more pressing issues:

1, Pickups
2, Hunger
It seems that PerWorldThreads has brought in a lot of unexpected resource contention; the current debugging version is no longer capable of running the world tick thread, not even for a single player. The release version is doing better, but still I need to fix this, because we can't do much without the debugging version.