This is the mail archive of the ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the eCos project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: sscanf() vs. fgetc()


Hi Robin,

>> But when I use sscanf() in the old thread, it hangs.
>> Even if the new process completes fgetc(), because characters are received,
>> the old process won't get any further.
>
>I suppose that only one thread at a time can read characters from a serial
>port. When a thread wants to read, it probably has to obtain a mutex, then it
>checks a condition such as input buffer not empty or waits on a condition
>variable bound to this condition. When some characters come in, the condition
>variable gets signalled and the thread with the higher priority runs and
>consumes the available characters. Therefore, another thread with a lower
>priority will never get a chance to see a non-empty buffer, or in one word:
>starvation.

You are obviously right, but:

My sscanf() does access a *string*, which is absolutely not related to the
*serial port* read by fgetc().

Peter


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]