C / C++ / MFC

amitmistry_petlad wrote:

Are yaar i reading the same thing.

softwaremonkey wrote:

If CSemaphore::Release() is called multiple times by the same thread, does it increase the count each time

softwaremonkey wrote:

I am working on some code where one thread calls Release() each time it adds stuff to a queue, expecting a worker thread to fire the correct number of times to remove stuff from the queue. The code doesnt work properly and I suspect it is fundamentally flawed.

softwaremonkey wrote:

unprocessed items building up on the queue

I've been thinking about writing an article on this for about a year but haven't found the time yet.

long nObjectsAdded = 0;
CQueueObject* pObj = NULL;
::EnterCriticalSection( &m_csQueue ); //Block access for other threads
while( pObj = GetNewObject() )
{
    m_Queue.push( pObj );
    ++nObjectsAdded; //Keep track of the nbr of objects to release the semaphore accordingly
}
::LeaveCriticalSection( &m_csQueue ); // Stop blocking block other threads
::ReleaseSemaphore( m_hQueueSemaphore, nObjectsAdded, NULL ); // Unleash waiting thread

while( !bStopRunning )
{
    ::WaitForSingleObject( m_hQueueSemaphore, INFINITE ); //You hopefully have more handles to wait on ;)
    ::EnterCriticalSection( &m_csQueue ); //Block other thread
    CQueueObject* pObj = m_Queue.top();
    m_Queue.pop();
    ::LeaveCriticalSection( &m_csQueue ); //Stop blocking other thread

    //Do whatever you want with pObj here.
}

String^ abc = TextBox1->Text; // something like that

---

The only programmers that are better than C programmers are those who code in 1's and 0's.....

Programm3r
My Blog: ^_^

SyamlalS wrote:

thanks to all who took interest.

---

The only programmers that are better than C programmers are those who code in 1's and 0's.....

Programm3r
My Blog: ^_^