Re: Atomicity block

Les Cargill <lcargill@worldnet.att.net>
4 Feb 2004 21:30:37 -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)
Re: Atomicity block lcargill@worldnet.att.net (Les Cargill) (2004-02-13)
[1 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Les Cargill <lcargill@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: comp.distributed,comp.programming,comp.compilers
Date: 4 Feb 2004 21:30:37 -0500
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
References: 04-02-022
Keywords: parallel
Posted-Date: 04 Feb 2004 21:30:37 EST

Alexi wrote:
>
> 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.
--
Les Cargill

Post a followup to this message

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