Message-Id: <m0wcViR-000S1iC@ciati.edu.ar>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
From: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
Organization: INTI
To: Shawn Hargreaves <Shawn AT talula DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:03:11 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: LWP and Win 95
Precedence: bulk

> From:          Shawn Hargreaves <Shawn AT talula DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
> Subject:       Re: LWP and Win 95
> Date:          Sun, 8 Jun 1997 14:11:19 +0100
> Organization:  None
> To:            djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Paul Derbyshire writes and Shawn Hargreaves <Shawn AT talula DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> 
replies:
> >Will LWP work with Windows 95?
> 
> I've no idea: try it and see!
> 
> >Also, are Allegro functions non-reentrant? 
> 
> As a rule, no. In particular anything that uses Allegro's global block
> of scratch memory (bitmap stretching, polygon rasterising, floodfill,
> and I think a few more that I can't remember right now), is 100% non-
> reentrant, and the graphics routines all assume that they can set the
> bank switch registers and have them stay set that way, so they will get
> upset if more than one thread tries to draw graphics at the same time...
And form my point of view that's right. If you want to use multitaking + 
Allegro only one task must draw to the screen. The rest must only send messages 
to a queuue requesting some draw (to be made by another task) or directly avoid 
drawing at all.
So I agree with Shawn here. 
I didn't saw recent versions of LWP, it supports priorities? that's important 
for that application.
 
SET 
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013