Search Results

Search found 2857 results on 115 pages for 'race condition'.

Page 3/115 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Over-Current condition on port 7 or 8

    - by Dymatic
    I am having a problem with my USB ports. It shows over-current conditions on ports 7 and 8. I have heard that this is caused by a damaged USB port, and since it is detecting it on two ports it seems that I have two that are broken. I do indeed have two that do not work, so that is not the issue. What I would like to do is disable whatever program is running over-current condition checks. tty's are unusable at this point. Every few second a new over-current condition occurs. Here is the output of dmesg: http://pastebin.com/CuFKRGue Is there an easy way to disable these checks or damage the ports to a point where it will no longer check? Fixing them is not important or an option.

    Read the article

  • Wait on multiple condition variables on Linux without unnecessary sleeps?

    - by Joseph Garvin
    I'm writing a latency sensitive app that in effect wants to wait on multiple condition variables at once. I've read before of several ways to get this functionality on Linux (apparently this is builtin on Windows), but none of them seem suitable for my app. The methods I know of are: Have one thread wait on each of the condition variables you want to wait on, which when woken will signal a single condition variable which you wait on instead. Cycling through multiple condition variables with a timed wait. Writing dummy bytes to files or pipes instead, and polling on those. #1 & #2 are unsuitable because they cause unnecessary sleeping. With #1, you have to wait for the dummy thread to wake up, then signal the real thread, then for the real thread to wake up, instead of the real thread just waking up to begin with -- the extra scheduler quantum spent on this actually matters for my app, and I'd prefer not to have to use a full fledged RTOS. #2 is even worse, you potentially spend N * timeout time asleep, or your timeout will be 0 in which case you never sleep (endlessly burning CPU and starving other threads is also bad). For #3, pipes are problematic because if the thread being 'signaled' is busy or even crashes (I'm in fact dealing with separate process rather than threads -- the mutexes and conditions would be stored in shared memory), then the writing thread will be stuck because the pipe's buffer will be full, as will any other clients. Files are problematic because you'd be growing it endlessly the longer the app ran. Is there a better way to do this? Curious for answers appropriate for Solaris as well.

    Read the article

  • Does this use of Monitor.Wait/Pulse have a race condition?

    - by jw
    I have a simple producer/consumer scenario, where there is only ever a single item being produced/consumed. Also, the producer waits for the worker thread to finish before continuing. I realize that kind of obviates the whole point of multithreading, but please just assume it really needs to be this way (: This code doesn't compile, but I hope you get the idea: // m_data is initially null // This could be called by any number of producer threads simultaneously void SetData(object foo) { lock(x) // Line A { assert(m_data == null); m_data = foo; Monitor.Pulse(x) // Line B while(m_data != null) Monitor.Wait(x) // Line C } } // This is only ever called by a single worker thread void UseData() { lock(x) // Line D { while(m_data == null) Monitor.Wait(x) // Line E // here, do something with m_data m_data = null; Monitor.Pulse(x) // Line F } } Here is the situation that I am not sure about: Suppose many threads call SetData() with different inputs. Only one of them will get inside the lock, and the rest will be blocked on Line A. Suppose the one that got inside the lock sets m_data and makes its way to Line C. Question: Could the Wait() on Line C allow another thread at Line A to obtain the lock and overwrite m_data before the worker thread even gets to it? Supposing that doesn't happen, and the worker thread processes the original m_data, and eventually makes its way to Line F, what happens when that Pulse() goes off? Will only the thread waiting on Line C be able to get the lock? Or will it be competing with all the other threads waiting on Line A as well? Essentially, I want to know if Pulse()/Wait() communicate with each other specially "under the hood" or if they are on the same level with lock(). The solution to these problems, if they exist, is obvious of course - just surround SetData() with another lock - say, lock(y). I'm just curious if it's even an issue to begin with.

    Read the article

  • Checking negative of a condition

    - by oym
    What is the (slightly pejorative) term for checking the negative of a condition (rather than the positive which is often more readable): e.g. if(!someVar) { return null; } else { return doSomethingInteresting(); } instead of doing this (which is arguably more readable) if(someVar) { return doSomethingInteresting(); } else { return null; } I vaguely remember there being a term for this; something in the same spirit as the term Yoda conditions.

    Read the article

  • Do condition variables still need a mutex if you're changing the checked value atomically?

    - by Joseph Garvin
    Here is the typical way to use a condition variable: // The reader(s) lock(some_mutex); if(protected_by_mutex_var != desired_value) some_condition.wait(some_mutex); unlock(some_mutex); // The writer lock(some_mutex); protected_by_mutex_var = desired_value; unlock(some_mutex); some_condition.notify_all(); But if protected_by_mutex_var is set atomically by say, a compare-and-swap instruction, does the mutex serve any purpose (other than that pthreads and other APIs require you to pass in a mutex)? Is it protecting state used to implement the condition? If not, is it safe then to do this?: // The writer protected_by_mutex_var = desired_value; some_condition.notify_all(); With the writer never directly interacting with the reader's mutex? If so, is it even necessary that different readers use the same mutex?

    Read the article

  • Can i make a launcher shortcut perform different actions based on a condition

    - by Nirmik
    What i want to do is pretty simple to understand. I want the same launcher shortcut to act like a ON/OFF swith for eg. Like suppose i have made a launcher to start LAMPP with the command gksudo /opt/lampp/lampp start This works properly to start lampp. Now,what i want to do is,If LAMPP is not on,the launcher should execute the above command and start lampp.While if lampp is on,I want ti to execute the command gksudo /opt/lampp/lampp stop and stop lampp. I want these 2 commands to be executed by the same launcher where the command to be executed is decided on the basis of a condition(LAMPP being ON or OFF in the above example) Can i do this? and how? I guess writing a bash script and then making the launcher execute the bash script would do it.but then how do i check weather lampp is on of off?

    Read the article

  • SUM condition on one set of columns where another includes certain values

    - by pjp
    I have the following data in Excel where I want a formula that will give me the sum of all of the total rows: A B australia 10 australia total 10 china 1 china 5 china 7 china total 13 I have tried formulae along the lines of =sumif(A:A,"search("total",A:A)>0",B:B) but I cannot get the condition to work. What is the correct way to write this contains condition? Is there also specific a grammar for the condition language? I've been unable to find anything.

    Read the article

  • Detect an Uninstall in a Launch Condition using Wix MSIs

    - by coxymla
    I've been playing around with Wix, making a little app with auto-generated installer and three versions to test the upgradability, 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0. 1.1 is meant to be able to upgrade from 1.0, and not to allow the user to install 1.1 if 1.1 is already present. <Upgrade Id="F30C4129-F14E-43ee-BD5E-03AA89AD8E07"> <UpgradeVersion Minimum="1.0.0" IncludeMinimum="yes" Maximum="1.0.0" IncludeMaximum="yes" Property="OLDERVERSIONBEINGUPGRADED" /> <UpgradeVersion Minimum="1.1.0" IncludeMinimum="yes" OnlyDetect="yes" Property="NEWERVERSIONDETECTED" /> </Upgrade> <Condition Message="A later version of [ProductName] is already installed. Setup will now exit."> NOT (NEWERVERSIONDETECTED OR Installed) </Condition> Problem #1: 1.1 can't be uninstalled, because the condition is set and checked during the uninstall. 2.0 is meant to be able to upgrade from 1.1, and not to upgrade from 1.0 ('too old'.) It shouldn't be able to install on top of itself either. <Upgrade Id="F30C4129-F14E-43ee-BD5E-03AA89AD8E07"> <UpgradeVersion Minimum="1.1.0" IncludeMinimum="yes" Maximum="1.1.0" IncludeMaximum="yes" Property="OLDERVERSIONBEINGUPGRADED" /> </Upgrade> <Upgrade Id="F30C4129-F14E-43ee-BD5E-03AA89AD8E07"> <UpgradeVersion Minimum="2.0.0" OnlyDetect="yes" Property="NEWERVERSIONDETECTED" /> </Upgrade> <Upgrade Id="F30C4129-F14E-43ee-BD5E-03AA89AD8E07"> <UpgradeVersion Minimum="1.0.0" IncludeMinimum="yes" Maximum="1.0.0" IncludeMaximum="yes" Property="TOOOLDVERSIONDETECTED" /> </Upgrade> <Condition Message="A later version of [ProductName] is already installed. Setup will now exit."> NOT NEWERVERSIONDETECTED OR Installed </Condition> <Condition Message="A version of [ProductName] that is already installed is too old to be upgraded. Setup will now exit."> NOT TOOOLDVERSIONDETECTED </Condition> Problem #2: If I try to upgrade from 1.1, I hit my modified later version condition. (Error: A later version of Main Application 1.1 is already installed. Setup will now exit.) Problem #3: The installer allows me to install 2.0 over the top of itself. What am I doing wrong with my Upgrade code and conditions to get these problems in my MSIs?

    Read the article

  • Why use threading data race will occur, but will not use gevent

    - by onlytiancai
    My test code is as follows, using threading, count is not 5,000,000 , so there has been data race, but using gevent, count is 5,000,000, there was no data race . Is not gevent coroutine execution will atom "count + = 1", rather than split into a one CPU instruction to execute? # -*- coding: utf-8 -*- import threading use_gevent = True use_debug = False cycles_count = 100*10000 if use_gevent: from gevent import monkey monkey.patch_thread() count = 0 class Counter(threading.Thread): def __init__(self, name): self.thread_name = name super(Counter, self).__init__(name=name) def run(self): global count for i in xrange(cycles_count): if use_debug: print '%s:%s' % (self.thread_name, count) count = count + 1 counters = [Counter('thread:%s' % i) for i in range(5)] for counter in counters: counter.start() for counter in counters: counter.join() print 'count=%s' % count

    Read the article

  • PowerPivot FILTER condition optimizations

    - by Marco Russo (SQLBI)
    In the comments of a recent post from Alberto Ferrari there was an interesting note about different performance related to the order of conditions in a FILTER call. I investigated about that and Jeffrey Wang has been so nice to give me some info about actual implementation that I can share on a blog post. First of all, an important disclaimer: PowerPivot is intended to make life easier, not requiring the user to think how to write the order of elements in a formula just to get better performance....(read more)

    Read the article

  • PowerPivot FILTER condition optimizations

    - by Marco Russo (SQLBI)
    In the comments of a recent post from Alberto Ferrari there was an interesting note about different performance related to the order of conditions in a FILTER call. I investigated about that and Jeffrey Wang has been so nice to give me some info about actual implementation that I can share on a blog post. First of all, an important disclaimer: PowerPivot is intended to make life easier, not requiring the user to think how to write the order of elements in a formula just to get better performance....(read more)

    Read the article

  • improve if else statement for multiple condition

    - by kitokid
    My superior said the following is bad code. But he didn't mention anything how to improve it. What might be the alternative elegant way of coding below statements, without using if else? if(name.equalsIgnoreCase("AAA")){ //do something }else if(name.equalsIgnoreCase("BBB")){ //do something }else if(name.equalsIgnoreCase("CCC")){ //do something }else if(name.equalsIgnoreCase("DDD")){ //do something }else if(name.equalsIgnoreCase("EEE")){ //do something }else{ //do something } Edited: I am using Java 6.

    Read the article

  • Barrier implementation with mutex and condition variable

    - by kkp
    I would like to implement a barrier using mutex locks and conditional variables. Please let me know whether my implementation below is fine or not? static int counter = 0; static int Gen = 999; void* thread_run(void*) { pthread_mutex_lock(&lock); int g = Gen; if (++counter == nThreads) { counter = 0; Gen++; pthread_cond_broadcast(&cond_var); } else { while (Gen == g) pthread_cond_wait(&cond_var, &lock); } pthread_mutex_unlock(&lock); return NULL; }

    Read the article

  • Avoid Code Repetition in Condition Statements

    - by Ethosik
    I have been programming for over 15 years now. I consider myself a very good programmer, but I understand (like all of us) there are things that I need to work on. One of these things is code repetition when dealing with conditions. I will give a generic sample: if(condition1) { //perform some logic if(condition2) { //perform some logic if(condition3) { //Perform logic } else { //MethodA(param) } } else { //MethodA(param) } } else { //MethodA() } Now, I cannot make it easy by doing the following: if(condition1 && condition2) { } else { } I cannot do this since I need to perform some logic if condition1 is true and before I test condition2. Is there a way to structure if...else blocks to where if you need to call a method in each else blocks, you are not repeating yourself?

    Read the article

  • If and else condition not working properly in xna [closed]

    - by user1090751
    I am developing chess like game and i wanted to show error message if user try to place any player inside the box which is not empty. For example in certain place if there is empty then the object(2d object) is placed else it should show error message. However in my program it is showing message everytime i.e when i place object on empty place then also it is showing error message. Please see the below code: protected override void Update(GameTime gameTime) { // Allows the game to exit if (GamePad.GetState(PlayerIndex.One).Buttons.Back == ButtonState.Pressed) this.Exit(); // TODO: Add your update logic here for (int i = 0; i < 25; i++) { MouseState mouseState; mouseDiBack = false; mouseState = Mouse.GetState(); if (new Rectangle(mouseState.X, mouseState.Y, 1, 1).Intersects(rect_arr[i])) { background_color_arr[i] = Color.Red; } else { background_color_arr[i] = Color.White; } if (new Rectangle(mouseState.X, mouseState.Y, 1, 1).Intersects(rect_arr[i]) && (mouseState.LeftButton == ButtonState.Pressed)) { if (boxes[i] != "goat" && boxes[i] != "tiger") { place = i; if (turn == "goat") { boxes[i] = "goat"; turn = "tiger"; } else { boxes[i] = "tiger"; turn = "goat"; } } else { errMsg = "This " + i + " block is not empty to place " + turn + ". Please select empty block!!"; } } } base.Update(gameTime); }

    Read the article

  • Silverlight 4 race condition with DataGrid master details control

    - by Simon_Weaver
    Basically I want a DataGrid (master) and details (textbox), where DataGrid is disabled during edit of details (forcing people to save/cancel)... Here's what I have... I have a DataGrid which serves as my master data. <data:DataGrid IsEnabled="{Binding CanLoad,ElementName=dsReminders}" ItemsSource="{Binding Data, ElementName=dsReminders}" > Its data comes from a DomainDataSource: <riaControls:DomainDataSource Name="dsReminders" AutoLoad="True" ... I have a bound Textbox which is the 'details' (very simple right now). There are buttons (Save/Cancel) which should be enabled when user tries to edit the text. Unfortunately Silverlight doesn't support UpdateSourceTrigger=PropertyChanged so I have to raise an event: <TextBox Text="{Binding SelectedItem.AcknowledgedNote, Mode=TwoWay, UpdateSourceTrigger=Explicit, ElementName=gridReminders}" TextChanged="txtAcknowledgedNote_TextChanged"/> The event to handle this calls BindingExpression.UpdateSource to update the source immediately: private void txtAcknowledgedNote_TextChanged(object sender, TextChangedEventArgs e) { BindingExpression be = txtAcknowledgedNote.GetBindingExpression(TextBox.TextProperty); be.UpdateSource(); } IN other words - typing in the textbox causes CanLoad of the DomainDataSource to become False (because we're editing). This in turn disables the DataGrid (IsEnabled is bound to it) and enables 'Cancel' and 'Save' buttons. However I'm running up against a race condition if I move quickly through rows in the DataGrid (just clicking random rows). The TextChanged presumably is being called on the textbox and confusing the DomainDataSource which then thinks there's been a change. So how should I disable the DataGrid while editing without having the race condition? One obvious solution would be to use KeyDown events to trigger the call to UpdateSource but I always hate having to do that.

    Read the article

  • Avoiding a fork()/SIGCHLD race condition

    - by larry
    Please consider the following fork()/SIGCHLD pseudo-code. // main program excerpt for (;;) { if ( is_time_to_make_babies ) { pid = fork(); if (pid == -1) { /* fail */ } else if (pid == 0) { /* child stuff */ print "child started" exit } else { /* parent stuff */ print "parent forked new child ", pid children.add(pid); } } } // SIGCHLD handler sigchld_handler(signo) { while ( (pid = wait(status, WNOHANG)) > 0 ) { print "parent caught SIGCHLD from ", pid children.remove(pid); } } In the above example there's a race-condition. It's possible for "/* child stuff */" to finish before "/* parent stuff */" starts which can result in a child's pid being added to the list of children after it's exited, and never being removed. When the time comes for the app to close down, the parent will wait endlessly for the already-finished child to finish. One solution I can think of to counter this is to have two lists: started_children and finished_children. I'd add to started_children in the same place I'm adding to children now. But in the signal handler, instead of removing from children I'd add to finished_children. When the app closes down, the parent can simply wait until the difference between started_children and finished_children is zero. Another possible solution I can think of is using shared-memory, e.g. share the parent's list of children and let the children .add and .remove themselves? But I don't know too much about this. EDIT: Another possible solution, which was the first thing that came to mind, is to simply add a sleep(1) at the start of /* child stuff */ but that smells funny to me, which is why I left it out. I'm also not even sure it's a 100% fix. So, how would you correct this race-condition? And if there's a well-established recommended pattern for this, please let me know! Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Tal condition always evaluates to false

    - by Ander2
    I'm using plone and trying to display a form result in a page template. I'm trying to filter some database results using tal:condition with a python expression but it always evaluates to false. The code looks like this: <tr tal:repeat="result view/results"> <td> <span tal:condition="python:view.teams[0]==result.team_id" tal:replace="result/position">Position</span></td> <td> <span tal:condition="python:view.teams[1]==result.team_id" tal:replace="result/position">Position</span></td> </tr> I want the table cells to be filled with the team position when the team id is matched in the result, but the cells always are empty. If I remove the tal:condition from the span and replace the tal:replace="result/position" with tal:replace=python:view.teams[0]==result.team_id it prints True or False so I can check that the result is correct. Can anyone help me about this issue? Why does tal:condition allways evaluate false?

    Read the article

  • car race game collision condition.

    - by ashok patidar
    car race game in as3 in which car is fix but track is scrolling where ever my car move i want car should always on the track only when it try to move none directional track that time it has to be rotate at some angle so that it can move in track direction only. i am unable to think logic. i need movement like this "http://www.emanueleferonato.com/2007/05/15/create-a-flash-racing-game-tutorial/" track should be scrollable as **http://as3.mindmafya.com/GameAS/ScrollingMaps-1.php pl z provide me suitable solution for that.

    Read the article

  • AI opponent car logic in car race game.

    - by ashok patidar
    hello i want to develop AI car(opponent) in car race game what should be my direction to develop them with less complexity because i don't have any idea. because the player car is moving on the scrolling track plz suggest me should i have to use relative motion or way point concept but that should also be change on the scrolling track (i.e. player car movement)

    Read the article

  • Can't figure out where race condition is occuring

    - by Nik
    I'm using Valgrind --tool=drd to check my application that uses Boost::thread. Basically, the application populates a set of "Book" values with "Kehai" values based on inputs through a socket connection. On a seperate thread, a user can connect and get the books send to them. Its fairly simple, so i figured using a boost::mutex::scoped_lock on the location that serializes the book and the location that clears out the book data should be suffice to prevent any race conditions. Here is the code: void Book::clear() { boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(dataMutex); for(int i =NUM_KEHAI-1; i >= 0; --i) { bid[i].clear(); ask[i].clear(); } } int Book::copyChangedKehaiToString(char* dst) const { boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(dataMutex); sprintf(dst, "%-4s%-13s",market.c_str(),meigara.c_str()); int loc = 17; for(int i = 0; i < Book::NUM_KEHAI; ++i) { if(ask[i].changed > 0) { sprintf(dst+loc,"A%i%-21s%-21s%-21s%-8s%-4s",i,ask[i].price.c_str(),ask[i].volume.c_str(),ask[i].number.c_str(),ask[i].postTime.c_str(),ask[i].status.c_str()); loc += 77; } } for(int i = 0; i < Book::NUM_KEHAI; ++i) { if(bid[i].changed > 0) { sprintf(dst+loc,"B%i%-21s%-21s%-21s%-8s%-4s",i,bid[i].price.c_str(),bid[i].volume.c_str(),bid[i].number.c_str(),bid[i].postTime.c_str(),bid[i].status.c_str()); loc += 77; } } return loc; } The clear() function and the copyChangedKehaiToString() function are called in the datagetting thread and data sending thread,respectively. Also, as a note, the class Book: struct Book { private: Book(const Book&); Book& operator=(const Book&); public: static const int NUM_KEHAI=10; struct Kehai; friend struct Book::Kehai; struct Kehai { private: Kehai& operator=(const Kehai&); public: std::string price; std::string volume; std::string number; std::string postTime; std::string status; int changed; Kehai(); void copyFrom(const Kehai& other); Kehai(const Kehai& other); inline void clear() { price.assign(""); volume.assign(""); number.assign(""); postTime.assign(""); status.assign(""); changed = -1; } }; std::vector<Kehai> bid; std::vector<Kehai> ask; tm recTime; mutable boost::mutex dataMutex; Book(); void clear(); int copyChangedKehaiToString(char * dst) const; }; When using valgrind --tool=drd, i get race condition errors such as the one below: ==26330== Conflicting store by thread 1 at 0x0658fbb0 size 4 ==26330== at 0x653AE68: std::string::_M_mutate(unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int) (in /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.8) ==26330== by 0x653AFC9: std::string::_M_replace_safe(unsigned int, unsigned int, char const*, unsigned int) (in /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.8) ==26330== by 0x653B064: std::string::assign(char const*, unsigned int) (in /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.8) ==26330== by 0x653B134: std::string::assign(char const*) (in /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.8) ==26330== by 0x8055D64: Book::Kehai::clear() (Book.h:50) ==26330== by 0x8094A29: Book::clear() (Book.cpp:78) ==26330== by 0x808537E: RealKernel::start() (RealKernel.cpp:86) ==26330== by 0x804D15A: main (main.cpp:164) ==26330== Allocation context: BSS section of /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.8 ==26330== Other segment start (thread 2) ==26330== at 0x400BB59: pthread_mutex_unlock (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:633) ==26330== by 0xC59565: pthread_mutex_unlock (in /lib/libc-2.5.so) ==26330== by 0x805477C: boost::mutex::unlock() (mutex.hpp:56) ==26330== by 0x80547C9: boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>::~unique_lock() (locks.hpp:340) ==26330== by 0x80949BA: Book::copyChangedKehaiToString(char*) const (Book.cpp:134) ==26330== by 0x80937EE: BookSerializer::serializeBook(Book const&, std::string const&) (BookSerializer.cpp:41) ==26330== by 0x8092D05: BookSnapshotManager::getSnaphotDataList() (BookSnapshotManager.cpp:72) ==26330== by 0x8088179: SnapshotServer::getDataList() (SnapshotServer.cpp:246) ==26330== by 0x808870F: SnapshotServer::run() (SnapshotServer.cpp:183) ==26330== by 0x808BAF5: boost::_mfi::mf0<void, RealThread>::operator()(RealThread*) const (mem_fn_template.hpp:49) ==26330== by 0x808BB4D: void boost::_bi::list1<boost::_bi::value<RealThread*> >::operator()<boost::_mfi::mf0<void, RealThread>, boost::_bi::list0>(boost::_bi::type<void>, boost::_mfi::mf0<void, RealThread>&, boost::_bi::list0&, int) (bind.hpp:253) ==26330== by 0x808BB90: boost::_bi::bind_t<void, boost::_mfi::mf0<void, RealThread>, boost::_bi::list1<boost::_bi::value<RealThread*> > >::operator()() (bind_template.hpp:20) ==26330== Other segment end (thread 2) ==26330== at 0x400B62A: pthread_mutex_lock (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:580) ==26330== by 0xC59535: pthread_mutex_lock (in /lib/libc-2.5.so) ==26330== by 0x80546B8: boost::mutex::lock() (mutex.hpp:51) ==26330== by 0x805473B: boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>::lock() (locks.hpp:349) ==26330== by 0x8054769: boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>::unique_lock(boost::mutex&) (locks.hpp:227) ==26330== by 0x8094711: Book::copyChangedKehaiToString(char*) const (Book.cpp:113) ==26330== by 0x80937EE: BookSerializer::serializeBook(Book const&, std::string const&) (BookSerializer.cpp:41) ==26330== by 0x808870F: SnapshotServer::run() (SnapshotServer.cpp:183) ==26330== by 0x808BAF5: boost::_mfi::mf0<void, RealThread>::operator()(RealThread*) const (mem_fn_template.hpp:49) ==26330== by 0x808BB4D: void boost::_bi::list1<boost::_bi::value<RealThread*> >::operator()<boost::_mfi::mf0<void, RealThread>, boost::_bi::list0>(boost::_bi::type<void>, boost::_mfi::mf0<void, RealThread>&, boost::_bi::list0&, int) (bind.hpp:253) For the life of me, i can't figure out where the race condition is. As far as I can tell, clearing the kehai is done only after having taken the mutex, and the same holds true with copying it to a string. Does anyone have any ideas what could be causing this, or where I should look? Thank you kindly.

    Read the article

  • AI opponenet car logic in car race game.

    - by ashok patidar
    hello i want to develop AI car(opponent) in car race game what should be my direction to develop them with less complexity because i don't have any idea. because the player car is moving on the scrolling track plz suggest me should i have to use relative motion or way point concept but that should also be change on the scrolling track (i.e. player car movement)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >