Re: A curiosity...

[Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net>]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Adam Beneschan wrote:
> 
>> This thread started with a comment about a tutorial that showed
>> students the "right" way to accomplish a certain task.  What do you
>> want to bet that this tutorial didn't say "This works only for such-
>> and-such implementations"
> 
> 
> The distinction between right and wrong that the tutorial
> was making was about not having multiple threads access a
> shared object because of unpredictable timing. I doubt that
> there has ever been a C implementation on any architecture
> where it was wrong to convert a small integer to pointer
> and back.
Interesting, I never realized that there is this huge issue or 
controversy with shared memory/objects.  These techniques have been used 
for 50 years and there are well known ways to synchronize and/or 
structure data to avoid timing issues.  Of course some operating systems 
are better than others.  My experience is mostly with OS' that provide 
no assistance at all, so you may define a handshaking process into the 
data access process.

-- 

Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net

Fortran Library:  http://www.fortranlib.com

Support the Original G95 Project:  http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project:  http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html

If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows 
it can't be done.

-- Henry Ford