From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,956e1c708fea1c33 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Looking for implementation idea Date: 1999/02/08 Message-ID: <79ld2d$s1d$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 441823819 References: X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x4.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Feb 08 01:02:09 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-02-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , minyard@acm.org wrote: > So should I now put spin-locks in all my protected type > operations so they will provide mutex on SMP machines (if > mutex is what I am looking for, which I expect is their > most common use)? This seems very confused, spin-locks if needed are part of the *implementation* of protected types, not something you need to worry about as a programmer. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own