Search Results

Search found 1638 results on 66 pages for 'multithreading'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 51/66 | < Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >

  • Not Able to call The method Asynchronously in the Unit Test.

    - by user43838
    Hi everyone, I am trying to call a method that passes an object called parameters. public void LoadingDataLockFunctionalityTest() { DataCache_Accessor target = DataCacheTest.getNewDataCacheInstance(); target.itemsLoading.Add("WebFx.Caching.TestDataRetrieverFactorytestsync", true); DataParameters parameters = new DataParameters("WebFx.Core", "WebFx.Caching.TestDataRetrieverFactory", "testsync"); parameters.CachingStrategy = CachingStrategy.TimerDontWait; parameters.CacheDuration = 0; string data = (string)target.performGetForTimerDontWaitStrategy(parameters); TestSyncDataRetriever.SimulateLoadingForFiveSeconds = true; Thread t1 = new Thread(delegate() { string s = (string)target.performGetForTimerDontWaitStrategy(parameters); Console.WriteLine(s ?? String.Empty); }); t1.Start(); t1.Join(); Thread.Sleep(1000); ReaderWriterLockSlim rw = DataCache_Accessor.GetLoadingLock(parameters); Assert.IsTrue(rw.IsWriteLockHeld); Assert.IsNotNull(data); } My test is failing all the time and i am not able step through the method.. Can someone please put me in the right direction Thanks

    Read the article

  • Form.Show() is not showing it's child controls

    - by Refracted Paladin
    I have a form, frmPleaseWait, that has a MarqueeProgressBar and a Label that I want to use when the UI is loading the data in a poorly structured app we have. The problem is that frmPleaseWait.Show() shows the form but not the controls in it. It is just a white rectangle. Now frmPleaseWait.ShowDialog() shows the child controls but doesn't let the UI load it's data. What am I missing? Below is a code snippet from where I am trying this. PleaseWait = new frmPleaseWait(); PleaseWait.Show(this); // Set all available HUD values in HUD Object HUD.LastName = GetCurrentRowVal("LastName").Trim(); HUD.FirstName = GetCurrentRowVal("FirstName").Trim(); HUD.PersonId = Convert.ToInt32(GetCurrentRowVal("PersonID").Trim()); HUD.SSn = GetCurrentRowVal("SSN").Trim(); HUD.MiddleName = GetCurrentRowVal("MiddleName").Trim(); HUD.MasterID = ConnectBLL.BLL.DriInterface.CheckForDriId(HUD.PersonId).ToString(); // This loads numerous UserControls with data shellForm.FormPaint(HUD.PersonId); PleaseWait.Close();

    Read the article

  • Will this make the object thread-safe?

    - by sharptooth
    I have a native Visual C++ COM object and I need to make it completely thread-safe to be able to legally mark it as "free-threaded" in th system registry. Specifically I need to make sure that no more than one thread ever accesses any member variable of the object simultaneously. The catch is I'm almost sure that no sane consumer of my COM object will ever try to simultaneously use the object from more than one thread. So I want the solution as simple as possible as long as it meets the requirement above. Here's what I came up with. I add a mutex or critical section as a member variable of the object. Every COM-exposed method will acquire the mutex/section at the beginning and release before returning control. I understand that this solution doesn't provide fine-grained access and this might slow execution down, but since I suppose simultaneous access will not really occur I don't care of this. Will this solution suffice? Is there a simpler solution?

    Read the article

  • Parent Thread exiting before Child Threads [python]

    - by crgwbr
    I'm using Python in a webapp (CGI for testing, FastCGI for production) that needs to send an occasional email (when a user registers or something else important happens). Since communicating with an SMTP server takes a long time, I'd like to spawn a thread for the mail function so that the rest of the app can finish up the request without waiting for the email to finish sending. I tried using thread.start_new(func, (args)), but the Parent return's and exits before the sending is complete, thereby killing the sending process before it does anything useful. Is there anyway to keep the process alive long enough for the child process to finish?

    Read the article

  • What is wrong with my @synchronized block?

    - by hyn
    I have 2 threads in my application, a game update thread and render/IO/main thread. My update thread updates the game state, and the render thread renders the scene based on the updated values of the game state models and a few other variables stored inside an object (gameEngine). The render thread gets executed while the game thread is still updating, which is a problem, so it appeared to me the solution is to use @synchronized like this: @synchronized(gameEngine) { [gameEngine update]; nextUpdate = now + GAME_UPDATE_INTERVAL; gameEngine.lastGameUpdateInterval = now - lastUpdate; gameEngine.lastGameUpdateTime = now; lastUpdate = now; } But the render thread still accesses the gameEngine object between -update and the last 3 lines of the block. Why is this?

    Read the article

  • Thread-safe use of a singleton's members

    - by Anthony Mastrean
    I have a C# singleton class that multiple classes use. Is access through Instance to the Toggle() method thread-safe? If yes, by what assumptions, rules, etc. If no, why and how can I fix it? public class MyClass { private static readonly MyClass instance = new MyClass(); public static MyClass Instance { get { return instance; } } private int value = 0; public int Toggle() { if(value == 0) { value = 1; } else if(value == 1) { value = 0; } return value; } }

    Read the article

  • Rails: Thread won't affect database unless joined to main Thread

    - by hatboysam
    I have a background operation I would like to occur every 20 seconds in Rails given that some condition is true. It kicked off when a certain controller route is hit, and it looks like this def startProcess argId = self.id t = Thread.new do while (Argument.isRunning(argId)) do Argument.update(argId) Argument.markVotes(argId) puts "Thread ran" sleep 20 end end end However, this code does absolutely nothing to my database unless I call "t.join" in which case my whole server is blocked for a long time (but it works). Why can't the read commit ActiveRecords without being joined to the main thread? The thread calls methods that look something like def sample model = Model.new() model.save() end but the models are not saved to the DB unless the thread is joined to the main thread. Why is this? I have been banging my head about this for hours.

    Read the article

  • memcpy() safety on adjacent memory regions

    - by JaredC
    I recently asked a question on using volatile and was directed to read some very informative articles from Intel and others discussing memory barriers and their uses. After reading these articles I have become quite paranoid though. I have a 64-bit machine. Is it safe to memcpy into adjacent, non-overlapping regions of memory from multiple threads? For example, say I have a buffer: char buff[10]; Is it always safe for one thread to memcpy into the first 5 bytes while a second thread copies into the last 5 bytes? My gut reaction (and some simple tests) indicate that this is completely safe, but I have been unable to find documentation anywhere that can completely convince me.

    Read the article

  • Does async and await incease performance of an ASP.Net application

    - by Kerezo
    I recently read a article about c#-5 and new $ nice asynchronous programming. I see it works greate in windows application. The question came to me before is if this feature can increase ASP.Net performance? consider this code: public T GetData() { var d = GetSomeData(); return d; } and public async T GetData2() { var d = await GetSomeData(); return d; } Has in an ASP.Net appication that two codes difference? thanks

    Read the article

  • Why isn't it possible to update an ObservableCollection from a different thread?

    - by MainMa
    In a multi-threaded WPF application, it is not possible to update an ObservableCollection from a thread other than WPF window thread. I know there are workarounds, so my question is not how to avoid the "This type of CollectionView does not support changes to its SourceCollection from a thread different from the Dispatcher thread" exception. My question is, why there is such an exception? Why wasn't it possible to allow collection updates from any thread? Personally, I don't see any reason to block UI update when ObservableCollection is changed from other threads. If two threads (including parallel ones) are accessing the same object, one listening for changes of object properties through events, the other one doing changes, it will always work, at least if locks are used properly. So, what are the reasons?

    Read the article

  • Mouse move and thread

    - by bsebi
    When I move the mouse over the window, the program runs much faster (cc. 3 times). This is a real time webcam .Net/Mono application running on a MacBook. On Windows works perfect. Is this maybe a power saving function of the laptop? The code: Thread t = new Thread(Foo); t.Priority = ThreadPriority.Highest; // I've tried without priority too, doesn't matter t.Start(); ... void Foo() { while (true) { ++k; // then write k to the window somehow } }

    Read the article

  • Cocoa: NSOpenPanel Threads

    - by Craig
    I am monitoring my application using Activity Monitor and whenever NSOpenPanel is called the application appears as having 9 threads and stays like that until the application is closed. Is there a way to release those threads?, Or am I simply misunderstanding what the threads number means?, surely it isn't a good thing to have them open for no reason. Any help would be appreciated

    Read the article

  • How to get a stable, snappy UI using threads?

    - by Thomas Ahle
    I recently watching this video on Google Chrome with great interest. It explains that Google Chrome uses one thread for IO, one for opening files and one for intermodule communication. I think I may be able to use something similar for my own - currently quite messy - application. I wondered if there were any good articles on best-practices or patterns for such threaded divisions of tasks?

    Read the article

  • DataGridView cells not editable when using an outside thread call

    - by joslinm
    Hi, I'm not able to edit my datagridview cells when a number of identical calls takes place on another thread. Here's the situation: Dataset table is created in the main window The program receives in files and processes them on a background thread in class TorrentBuilder : BackgroundWorker creating an array objects of another class Torrent My program receives those objects from the BW result and adds them into the dataset The above happens either on my main window thread or in another thread: I have a separate thread watching a folder for files to come in, and when they do come in, they proceed to call TorrentBuilder.RunWorkerAsynch() from that thread, receive the result, and call an outside class that adds the Torrent objects into the table. When the files are received by the latter thread, the datagridview isn't editable. All of the values come up properly into the datagridview, but when I click on a cell to edit it: I can write letters and everything, but when I click out of it, it immediately reverts back to its original value. If I restart the program, I can edit the same cells just fine. If the values are freshly added from the main window thread, I can edit the cells just fine. The outside thread is called from my main window thread, and sits there in the background. I don't believe it to be ReadOnly because I would have gotten an exception. Here's some code: From my main window class: private void dataGridView_DragDrop(object sender, DragEventArgs e) { ArrayList al = new ArrayList(); string[] files = (string[])e.Data.GetData(DataFormats.FileDrop); foreach (string file in files) { string extension = Path.GetExtension(file); if (Path.GetExtension(file).Equals(".zip") || Path.GetExtension(file).Equals(".rar")) { foreach (string unzipped in dh.UnzipFile(file)) al.Add(unzipped); } else if (Path.GetExtension(file).Equals(".torrent")) { al.Add(file); } } dataGridViewProgressBar.Visible = true; tb.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(tb_DragDropCompleted); tb.ProgressChanged += new ProgressChangedEventHandler(tb_DragDropProgress); tb.RunWorkerAsync() } void tb_DragDropCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e) { data.AddTorrents((Torrent[])e.Result); builder.Dispose(); dh.MoveProcessedFiles(data); dataGridViewProgressBar.Visible = false; } From my outside Thread while (autocheck) { if (torrentFiles != null) { builder.RunWorkerAsync(torrentFiles); while (builder.IsBusy) Thread.Sleep(500); } } void builder_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, System.ComponentModel.RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e) { data.AddTorrents((Torrent[])e.Result); builder.Dispose(); dh.MoveProcessedFiles(xml); data.Save(); //Save just does an `AcceptChanges()` and saves to a XML file }

    Read the article

  • Is this use of PreparedStatements in a Thread in JAVA correct?

    - by Gormcito
    I'm still an undergrad just working part time and so I'm always trying to be aware of better ways to do things. Recently I had to write a program for work where the main thread of the program would spawn "task" threads (for each db "task" record) which would perform some operations and then update the record to say that it has finished. Therefore I needed a database connection object and PreparedStatement objects in or available to the ThreadedTask objects. This is roughly what I ended up writing, is creating a PreparedStatement object per thread a waste? I thought static PreparedStatments could create race conditions... Thread A stmt.setInt(); Thread B stmt.setInt(); Thread A stmt.execute(); Thread B stmt.execute(); A´s version never gets execed.. Is this thread safe? Is creating and destroying PreparedStatement objects that are always the same not a huge waste? public class ThreadedTask implements runnable { private final PreparedStatement taskCompleteStmt; public ThreadedTask() { //... taskCompleteStmt = Main.db.prepareStatement(...); } public run() { //... taskCompleteStmt.executeUpdate(); } } public class Main { public static final db = DriverManager.getConnection(...); }

    Read the article

  • Isolating read and write in multithreaded

    - by the_lotus
    Hi In a multithreaded application. I have a bunch of function that loop through a collection to read the information. I also have a bunch of function that modifies that same collection. I’m looking for a way to isolate all the read and the write together. I don’t want a write to be done while a read is in progress. I was thinking of using SyncLock on the collection object but this will block multiple read trying to work in parallel.

    Read the article

  • Blackberry screen navigation probelm

    - by dalandroid
    I have a Screen name DownloaderScreen when the screen start it will start download some file and when download is complete it will go forward to next screen autometically. I using the following code. public DownloaderScreen() { super(NO_VERTICAL_SCROLL | NO_HORIZONTAL_SCROLL | USE_ALL_HEIGHT | USE_ALL_WIDTH); this.application = UiApplication.getUiApplication(); HorizontalFieldManager outerBlock = new HorizontalFieldManager(USE_ALL_HEIGHT); VerticalFieldManager innerBlock = new VerticalFieldManager(USE_ALL_WIDTH | FIELD_VCENTER); innerBlock.setPadding(0, 10, 0, 10); outerBlock.setBackground(BackgroundFactory .createBitmapBackground(LangValue.dlBgimg)); outerBlock.add(innerBlock); add(outerBlock); phraseHelper = new PhraseHelper(); final String[][] phraseList = phraseHelper.getDownloadList(); gaugeField = new GaugeField("Downloading ", 0, phraseList.length, 0, GaugeField.PERCENT); innerBlock.add(gaugeField); Thread dlTread = new Thread() { public void run() { startDownload(phraseList); } }; dlTread.start(); } private void startDownload(String[][] phraseList){ if(phraseList.length!=0){ for(int i=0; i < phraseList.length ; i++){// gaugeField.setValue(i); // code for download } } goToNext(); } private void goToNext() { final Screen currentScreen = application.getActiveScreen(); if (UiApplication.isEventDispatchThread()) { application.popScreen(currentScreen); application.pushScreen(new HomeScreen()); } else { application.invokeLater(new Runnable() { public void run() { application.popScreen(currentScreen); application.pushScreen(new HomeScreen()); } }); } } The code is working fine and starts download files and when download is completed it is going forward to next screen. But when there is no file to download phraseList array length is zero, it is not going forward. What is problem in my code?

    Read the article

  • VB.net SyncLock Object

    - by Budius
    I always seen on SyncLock examples people using Private Lock1 As New Object ' declaration SyncLock Lock1 ' usage but why? In my specific case I'm locking a Queue to avoid problems on mult-threading Enqueueing and Dequeueing my data. Can I lock the Queue object itself, like this? Private cmdQueue As New Queue(Of QueueItem) ' declaration SyncLock cmdQueue ' usage Any help appreciated. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Can I overwrite an Object that has been Locked() in C#?

    - by makerofthings7
    I have a few objects that I'd like to send to the server, but I want to make sure that this is the only thread that moving the data from Stage to Upload. Is the following code valid in a multithreaded environment? List<CounterInternal> UploadToServer = new List<CounterInternal>(); List<CounterInternal> StagingQueue = new List<CounterInternal>(); lock (this.UploadToServer) lock (this.StagingQueue) { if (UploadToServer.Count == 0) { UploadToServer = StagingQueue.DoDeepCopyExtensionMethod(); // is the following line valid given that I have a Lock() on it? StagingQueue = new List<CounterInternal>(); } } }

    Read the article

  • Threads syncronization with ThreadPoolExecutor

    - by justme1
    I'm trying to implement some logic when I create main(father) thread witch executes several other threads. Then it waits for some condition which child threads creates. After condition is meet the father executes some more child threads. The problem that when I use wait/notify I have java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException exception. Here is the code: public class MyExecutor { final static ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable>(10); final static ExecutorService svc = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1); static final ThreadPoolExecutor threadPool = new ThreadPoolExecutor(5, 8, 10, TimeUnit.SECONDS, queue); public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException { final MyExecutor me = new MyExecutor(); svc.execute(new Runnable() { public void run() { try { System.out.println("Main Thread"); me.execute(threadPool, 1); System.out.println("Main Thread waiting"); wait(); System.out.println("Main Thread notified"); me.execute(threadPool, 2); Thread.sleep(100); threadPool.shutdown(); threadPool.awaitTermination(20000, TimeUnit.SECONDS); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } }); svc.shutdown(); svc.awaitTermination(10000, TimeUnit.SECONDS); System.out.println("Main Thread finished"); } public void execute(ThreadPoolExecutor tpe, final int id) { tpe.execute(new Runnable() { public void run() { try { System.out.println("Child Thread " + id); Thread.sleep(2000); System.out.println("Child Thread " + id + " finished"); notify(); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } }); } } When I comment wait and notify line I have the following output: Main Thread Main Thread waiting Main Thread notified Child Thread 1 Child Thread 2 Child Thread 1 finished Child Thread 2 finished Main Thread finished

    Read the article

  • Threading across multiple files

    - by Zach M.
    My program is reading in files and using thread to compute the highest prime number, when I put a print statement into the getNum() function my numbers are printing out. However, it seems to just lag no matter how many threads I input. Each file has 1 million integers in it. Does anyone see something apparently wrong with my code? Basically the code is giving each thread 1000 integers to check before assigning a new thread. I am still a C noobie and am just learning the ropes of threading. My code is a mess right now because I have been switching things around constantly. #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <time.h> #include <string.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <math.h> #include <semaphore.h> //Global variable declaration char *file1 = "primes1.txt"; char *file2 = "primes2.txt"; char *file3 = "primes3.txt"; char *file4 = "primes4.txt"; char *file5 = "primes5.txt"; char *file6 = "primes6.txt"; char *file7 = "primes7.txt"; char *file8 = "primes8.txt"; char *file9 = "primes9.txt"; char *file10 = "primes10.txt"; char **fn; //file name variable int numberOfThreads; int *highestPrime = NULL; int fileArrayNum = 0; int loop = 0; int currentFile = 0; sem_t semAccess; sem_t semAssign; int prime(int n)//check for prime number, return 1 for prime 0 for nonprime { int i; for(i = 2; i <= sqrt(n); i++) if(n % i == 0) return(0); return(1); } int getNum(FILE* file) { int number; char* tempS = malloc(20 *sizeof(char)); fgets(tempS, 20, file); tempS[strlen(tempS)-1] = '\0'; number = atoi(tempS); free(tempS);//free memory for later call return(number); } void* findPrimality(void *threadnum) //main thread function to find primes { int tNum = (int)threadnum; int checkNum; char *inUseFile = NULL; int x=1; FILE* file; while(currentFile < 10){ if(inUseFile == NULL){//inUseFIle being used to check if a file is still being read sem_wait(&semAccess);//critical section inUseFile = fn[currentFile]; sem_post(&semAssign); file = fopen(inUseFile, "r"); while(!feof(file)){ if(x % 1000 == 0 && tNum !=1){ //go for 1000 integers and then wait sem_wait(&semAssign); } checkNum = getNum(file); /* * * * * I think the issue is here * * * */ if(checkNum > highestPrime[tNum]){ if(prime(checkNum)){ highestPrime[tNum] = checkNum; } } x++; } fclose(file); inUseFile = NULL; } currentFile++; } } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { if(argc != 2){ //checks for number of arguements being passed printf("To many ARGS\n"); return(-1); } else{//Sets thread cound to user input checking for correct number of threads numberOfThreads = atoi(argv[1]); if(numberOfThreads < 1 || numberOfThreads > 10){ printf("To many threads entered\n"); return(-1); } time_t preTime, postTime; //creating time variables int i; fn = malloc(10 * sizeof(char*)); //create file array and initialize fn[0] = file1; fn[1] = file2; fn[2] = file3; fn[3] = file4; fn[4] = file5; fn[5] = file6; fn[6] = file7; fn[7] = file8; fn[8] = file9; fn[9] = file10; sem_init(&semAccess, 0, 1); //initialize semaphores sem_init(&semAssign, 0, numberOfThreads); highestPrime = malloc(numberOfThreads * sizeof(int)); //create an array to store each threads highest number for(loop = 0; loop < numberOfThreads; loop++){//set initial values to 0 highestPrime[loop] = 0; } pthread_t calculationThread[numberOfThreads]; //thread to do the work preTime = time(NULL); //start the clock for(i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++){ pthread_create(&calculationThread[i], NULL, findPrimality, (void *)i); } for(i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++){ pthread_join(calculationThread[i], NULL); } for(i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++){ printf("this is a prime number: %d \n", highestPrime[i]); } postTime= time(NULL); printf("Wall time: %ld seconds\n", (long)(postTime - preTime)); } } Yes I am trying to find the highest number over all. So I have made some head way the last few hours, rescucturing the program as spudd said, currently I am getting a segmentation fault due to my use of structures, I am trying to save the largest individual primes in the struct while giving them the right indices. This is the revised code. So in short what the first thread is doing is creating all the threads and giving them access points to a very large integer array which they will go through and find prime numbers, I want to implement semaphores around the while loop so that while they are executing every 2000 lines or the end they update a global prime number. #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <time.h> #include <string.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <math.h> #include <semaphore.h> //Global variable declaration char *file1 = "primes1.txt"; char *file2 = "primes2.txt"; char *file3 = "primes3.txt"; char *file4 = "primes4.txt"; char *file5 = "primes5.txt"; char *file6 = "primes6.txt"; char *file7 = "primes7.txt"; char *file8 = "primes8.txt"; char *file9 = "primes9.txt"; char *file10 = "primes10.txt"; int numberOfThreads; int entries[10000000]; int entryIndex = 0; int fileCount = 0; char** fileName; int largestPrimeNumber = 0; //Register functions int prime(int n); int getNum(FILE* file); void* findPrimality(void *threadNum); void* assign(void *num); typedef struct package{ int largestPrime; int startingIndex; int numberCount; }pack; //Beging main code block int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { if(argc != 2){ //checks for number of arguements being passed printf("To many threads!!\n"); return(-1); } else{ //Sets thread cound to user input checking for correct number of threads numberOfThreads = atoi(argv[1]); if(numberOfThreads < 1 || numberOfThreads > 10){ printf("To many threads entered\n"); return(-1); } int threadPointer[numberOfThreads]; //Pointer array to point to entries time_t preTime, postTime; //creating time variables int i; fileName = malloc(10 * sizeof(char*)); //create file array and initialize fileName[0] = file1; fileName[1] = file2; fileName[2] = file3; fileName[3] = file4; fileName[4] = file5; fileName[5] = file6; fileName[6] = file7; fileName[7] = file8; fileName[8] = file9; fileName[9] = file10; FILE* filereader; int currentNum; for(i = 0; i < 10; i++){ filereader = fopen(fileName[i], "r"); while(!feof(filereader)){ char* tempString = malloc(20 *sizeof(char)); fgets(tempString, 20, filereader); tempString[strlen(tempString)-1] = '\0'; entries[entryIndex] = atoi(tempString); entryIndex++; free(tempString); } } //sem_init(&semAccess, 0, 1); //initialize semaphores //sem_init(&semAssign, 0, numberOfThreads); time_t tPre, tPost; pthread_t coordinate; tPre = time(NULL); pthread_create(&coordinate, NULL, assign, (void**)numberOfThreads); pthread_join(coordinate, NULL); tPost = time(NULL); } } void* findPrime(void* pack_array) { pack* currentPack= pack_array; int lp = currentPack->largestPrime; int si = currentPack->startingIndex; int nc = currentPack->numberCount; int i; int j = 0; for(i = si; i < nc; i++){ while(j < 2000 || i == (nc-1)){ if(prime(entries[i])){ if(entries[i] > lp) lp = entries[i]; } j++; } } return (void*)currentPack; } void* assign(void* num) { int y = (int)num; int i; int count = 10000000/y; int finalCount = count + (10000000%y); int sIndex = 0; pack pack_array[(int)num]; pthread_t workers[numberOfThreads]; //thread to do the workers for(i = 0; i < y; i++){ if(i == (y-1)){ pack_array[i].largestPrime = 0; pack_array[i].startingIndex = sIndex; pack_array[i].numberCount = finalCount; } pack_array[i].largestPrime = 0; pack_array[i].startingIndex = sIndex; pack_array[i].numberCount = count; pthread_create(&workers[i], NULL, findPrime, (void *)&pack_array[i]); sIndex += count; } for(i = 0; i< y; i++) pthread_join(workers[i], NULL); } //Functions int prime(int n)//check for prime number, return 1 for prime 0 for nonprime { int i; for(i = 2; i <= sqrt(n); i++) if(n % i == 0) return(0); return(1); }

    Read the article

  • how to run TimerTask off main UI thread?

    - by huskyd97
    I am having trouble with a TimerTask Interfering with In App Purchasing (Async Tasks). I am weak with Threads, so I believe it is running on the main UI thread, eating up resources. How can I run this outside the UI thread? I have searched, and tried some suggestions using handlers. but seems like I get the same result, app gets really laggy. when I don't run this task (refreshes every 500mS), the activity runs smoothly, and there are no hangs during In app purchases. Your help is appreciated, code snippet below: public class DummyButtonClickerActivity extends Activity { protected Timer timeTicker = new Timer("Ticker"); private Handler timerHandler = new Handler(); protected int timeTickDown = 20; @Override public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); setContentView(R.layout.mainhd); // start money earned timer handler TimerTask tick = new TimerTask() { public void run() { myTickTask(); } }; timeTicker.scheduleAtFixedRate(tick, 0, 500); // 500 ms each } // End OnCreate protected void myTickTask() { if (timeTickDown == 0) { /// run my code here //total = total + _Rate; timerHandler.post(doUpdateTimeout); } else if(timeTickDown < 0) { // do nothing } timeTickDown--; } private Runnable doUpdateTimeout = new Runnable() { public void run() { updateTimeout(); } }; private void updateTimeout() { // reset tick timeTickDown = 2; // 2* 500ms == once a second } }

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >