posted October 09, 2002 17:02            

quote:

---

I can still, for example, wait on a mask of 0xF0 with OSANY_BITS, and signal a single bit, and timeouts will work correctly?

---

posted October 09, 2002 16:51            

Just so that I'm clear on the Service Bulletin,

quote:

---

This will solve the timeout problem, but only if the eFlag is set (signaled) with exactly the mask and options with which the task is waiting the eFlag.

---

I can still, for example, wait on a mask of 0xF0 with OSANY_BITS, and signal a single bit, and timeouts will work correctly?

posted October 09, 2002 16:40            

Don't bother sending the sample project -- what you observed is the correct behavior for the code as it is written.

We've issued a Service Bulletin SB-14 for it:http://www.pumpkininc.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000014.html. Be sure to read it ...

However, that doesn't mean that it is the expected or documented behavior, does it?

Salvo's internal workings with eFlags are different from all other event types. What is happening is that each time an eFlag is signaled, all the tasks that wait the eFlag wake up / are made eligible, and then they all run and analyze whether the event (with option and mask) they are waiting on has occurred. Therefore any task that waits an eFlag with a timeout will wake up whenever the eFlag is signaled.

As you can see, the current eFlag implementation leaves something to be desired ...

But never fear, I believe there is a way that we can implement more advanced eFlags, solve this timeout problem and improve performance at the same time. The idea is for the user to define an arbitrary "event flag validating function" for each task+eFlag combo. This way, you're not limited to the options (ANY|ALL|EXACT_BITS) that we currently provide. The trick in all this is to minimize RAM usage, and I think I now see an elegant way to do it ... but this improvement will not come before the v3.1.x release ...

For now, keep on doing what you've been doing. It costs you a small amount of RAM (one ecb and one efcb), but you'll actually get better system performance that way.

Regards

posted October 09, 2002 11:41            

Doesn't seem like you're doing anything wrong -- can you make up a small project that exhibits this problem and email it to support@pumpkininc.com?

Thanks,

posted October 09, 2002 11:39            

I have two tasks, A and B, and an event flag E.

Task A waits on event flag E with mask 0xF0 and no timeout.

Task B waits on event flag E with mask 0x0F and a timeout.

Some combination of circumstances causes task B's timeout to never happen, although it continues to receive event flags. Timeouts are still working elsewhere in the code, as are OS_Delay calls.