windows: the excuse of the century

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

We can't handle more than 64 threads right now because we use
WaitForMultipleObjects and Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, decided
that thou shalt only have up to 64 objects for this call.  I really miss
the obsolete, limited and poorly designed Unix functions.

There is a define that limits us to 50, but that is easy to change...

In some places, this is easy to fix by just making multiple calls but in
places where it blocks it isn't so easy...

I think we need a better threading model; ie. dynamic creation and
desctruction like the Unix process model and removing the 64 limitation.

Re: windows: the excuse of the century

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:

> We can't handle more than 64 threads right now because we use
> WaitForMultipleObjects and Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, decided
> that thou shalt only have up to 64 objects for this call.  I really miss
> the obsolete, limited and poorly designed Unix functions.
> 
> There is a define that limits us to 50, but that is easy to change...

Erm, sorry that 50 limit (MAX_PROCESSES) is of course nothing to do with
threads.

The rest still holds though.

> 
> In some places, this is easy to fix by just making multiple calls but in
> places where it blocks it isn't so easy...
> 
> I think we need a better threading model; ie. dynamic creation and
> desctruction like the Unix process model and removing the 64 limitation.
>