According to someone who should know (Rick Rashid, VP research at Microsoft) Gates never
said this, and in fact it was someone else in an article about Gates and the quote (and
legend) has stuck.
On Sun, 3 May 2009 01:17:29 -0500, "Scot T Brennecke" <ScotB@MVPs.spamhater.org> wrote:
You know what to do. ;) Just bite the bullet and make a lookup table from a 16-bit ID to the
real
32-bit DWORD thread ID. And although you "certainly don't need more than 0xffff threads" (which
makes perfect sense in today's world), remember that somebody famous once said, "nobody would ever
need more than 640K!"
".rhavin grobert" <clqrq@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:1199c7d4-c5a6-468e-abb5-8181bf9d2434@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On 30 Apr., 02:44, Joseph M. Newcomer <newco...@flounder.com> wrote:
No. If you create lots of threads and study the thread ids, you will see there is little
pattern to them.
Note that some are of the form 00000??? but others are 0000????. Note that these IDs are
printed out in the order they were created. There is no pattern here.
joe
Not exactly ... there all 0x0000????. Is there some underlying WORD?
The original reason for asking is the following: i have an engine were
i have a certain "selector" (64bit) that has a field (16Bit) that is
used to identify (if a certain pattern in another field of the
selector is set) a thread. as the selector-format can only provide a
16bit-identifier (and i cerainly dont need more than 0xffff
threads;-), i have a table were tread-id's match identifiers. So the
"smart thought" was: If thread-ids would be always < 0x10000, i could
use them directly in my selector without a translation-table.
But of course i know that trying to be smart may lead to funny
debugging-nights some years later ;-)
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]