Atomicity block

alexili@ms.kyrnet.kg (Alexi)
1 Feb 2004 12:51:21 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Atomicity block alexili@ms.kyrnet.kg (2004-02-01)
Re: Atomicity block lcargill@worldnet.att.net (Les Cargill) (2004-02-04)
Re: Atomicity block thad@ionsky.com (Thad Smith) (2004-02-04)
Re: Atomicity block tlh20@cus.cam.ac.uk (2004-02-04)
Re: Atomicity block eventhelix@hotmail.com (2004-02-04)
Re: Atomicity block nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2004-02-08)
Re: Atomicity block K.Hagan@thermoteknix.co.uk (Ken Hagan) (2004-02-12)
[2 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: alexili@ms.kyrnet.kg (Alexi)
Newsgroups: comp.distributed,comp.programming,comp.compilers
Date: 1 Feb 2004 12:51:21 -0500
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Keywords: parallel, question
Posted-Date: 01 Feb 2004 12:51:21 EST

Many languages introduce structures/keywords for critical sections,
monitors and other similar stuff that does synchronisation, mutual
exclusion and etc. Is there anything similar for atomicity? I mean
some monitor-like construction that would tell compiler to generate
uninterraptable code that would have exclusive access to all addressed
memory and may be other resources. All asynchronous events may be
suspended until the end of such construct, that seems quite possible.
And waht about exclusive memory access? This might require some
support from OS/HW


If we are speaking in terms of some high-level language, can we build
atomicity using monitors and mutexes (ignoring async signals)? I mean
if one protects all the global variables using mutexes, puts monitor
on the method, will he get atomic routine?

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.