|Atomicity block email@example.com (2004-02-01)|
|Re: Atomicity block firstname.lastname@example.org (Les Cargill) (2004-02-04)|
|Re: Atomicity block email@example.com (Thad Smith) (2004-02-04)|
|Re: Atomicity block firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-02-04)|
|Re: Atomicity block email@example.com (2004-02-04)|
|Re: Atomicity block firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-02-08)|
|Re: Atomicity block K.Hagan@thermoteknix.co.uk (Ken Hagan) (2004-02-12)|
|Re: Atomicity block email@example.com (Les Cargill) (2004-02-13)|
|[1 later articles]|
|From:||Les Cargill <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||4 Feb 2004 21:30:37 -0500|
|Posted-Date:||04 Feb 2004 21:30:37 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? ...
It's probably better to have an O/S ( and probably hardware ) support
these things, so that language/compiler implementation may remain
uncluttered by these issues.
Ada has keywords for atomicity, but Ada didn't do very well in the
marketplace. Shame, it's a nice system.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.