Re: Atomicity block (T.L. Harris)
4 Feb 2004 21:44:29 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Atomicity block (2004-02-01)
Re: Atomicity block (Les Cargill) (2004-02-04)
Re: Atomicity block (Thad Smith) (2004-02-04)
Re: Atomicity block (2004-02-04)
Re: Atomicity block (2004-02-04)
Re: Atomicity block (2004-02-08)
Re: Atomicity block (Ken Hagan) (2004-02-12)
Re: Atomicity block (Les Cargill) (2004-02-13)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: (T.L. Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.distributed,comp.programming,comp.compilers
Date: 4 Feb 2004 21:44:29 -0500
Organization: University of Cambridge, England
References: 04-02-022
Keywords: parallel
Posted-Date: 04 Feb 2004 21:44:29 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? 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

Keir Fraser and I had a paper along these lines at OOPSLA 2003. We
used a software transactional memory (STM) as the basis of the
implementation. The paper focussed on making atomic updates to data
structures held in shared memory, but we've had some thoughts about
how to extend it to deal with some forms of I/O.

There are links to our work at



Post a followup to this message

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