DM>
  > DL> The semaphores are designed for threads; I'm not sure if you can use
  > DL> them for inter-process communications or not, just inter-thread
  > DL> communications.
  >
  > Semaphores are designed for inter-process, not inter-
  > thread.  Since they are globally available, threads may use
  > them, but just as often, critical sections may be used to a
  > greater efficiency as they have lower overhead (if they are
  > the same as the WinNT versions of these functions, which is
  > likely considering their common base).
DM>

  Wrong on two counts.

  Semaphores are designed for inter-thread communication.  This works
  equally well between threads of different processes as it does for
  threads of the same process.  The only consideration for the former is
  that the semaphore be named (otherwise the second process cannot locate
  the semaphore).

  Secondly, critical sections are a far worse option than semaphores, even
  when used within a single process.  Critical sections disable *all*
  other threads in the same process.  It is a terrible mistake to use
  critical sections as a lazy man's mutex, since critical sections will
  affect *all* threads in your process, whatever they are doing at the
  time, even if they aren't involved in the contention for the mutex at
  all.

  > JdeBP <
___
 X MegaMail 2.10 #0:

--- Maximus/2 3.01