getpid() and pfNodeTravFuncs()

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Tom Impelluso (verdi++at++piano.ucsd.edu)
Wed, 3 Sep 1997 11:14:42 -0700


Hi,

I have taken a code from the Performer-examples.

This is a section:

        pfNodeTravFuncs(carDCS, PFTRAV_DRAW, updateDCS, NULL);
        pfNodeTravData(carDCS, PFTRAV_DRAW, carData);

I have made three different modifications:

        pfNodeTravFuncs(carDCS, PFTRAV_APP, updateDCS, NULL);
        pfNodeTravData(carDCS, PFTRAV_APP, carData);

        pfNodeTravFuncs(carDCS, PFTRAV_CULL, updateDCS, NULL);
        pfNodeTravData(carDCS, PFTRAV_CULL, carData);

        pfNodeTravFuncs(carDCS, PFTRAV_DRAW, updateDCS, NULL);
        pfNodeTravData(carDCS, PFTRAV_DRAW, carData);

Naturally, I would assume that different processes would do the calling
of this function: The cull process, the draw, and the app.

Inside of updateDCS(), I add this line:

        printf("In updateDCS: pid = %d\n",getpid()); fflush(stdout);

Just after main, and before I do anything else, I add this line:

        printf("In main - first thing: pid = %d\n",getpid()); fflush(stdout);

I would expect that, depending on which of the above three cases:
        PFTRAV_APP
        PFTRAV_CULL
        PFTRAV_DRAW...

        I would see different pid numbers.
        But the pid numbers are always the same as that of main.

I do not understand. Yes, I am only working on a 1-CPU impact (not a multi-proc)

But, still, I should see the different process id numbers.

>From another window, when I execute "ps", I see the three processes, so I
know that three distince processes do exist, but I alway get the same number
of pid as that which is reported by main.

Could someone explain why?

Thanks,
Tom
  

=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
            Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com
        Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:55:52 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.