From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org>
Subject: Re: Basic question about select
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:25:42 -0700
Date: 2010-04-28T21:25:42-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <hrb2af$l4c$1@tornado.tornevall.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c6b914bf-3c59-4430-a1e4-1a7678057612@32g2000prq.googlegroups.com>
Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> Is that necessarily the case? Since there aren't any priorities
> specified, I don't think it's defined whether the body of the main
> procedure (assuming it's a procedure) starts running first, or the
> body of PID (assuming a single processor).
That's a big assumption, especially today. From pretty cheap systems on up,
almost everything has at least 2 processors these days. Certainly that's the
case for the system on which I tested it, and found that it deadlocks as
originally written, but doesn't if "delay 1.0;" is added to the task before the
accept.
--
Jeff Carter
"From this day on, the official language of San Marcos will be Swedish."
Bananas
28
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-29 4:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-28 18:16 Basic question about select John Wilkinson
2010-04-28 18:36 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2010-04-28 21:00 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2010-04-28 22:41 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2010-04-29 0:20 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2010-04-29 2:16 ` Adam Beneschan
2010-04-29 4:25 ` Jeffrey R. Carter [this message]
2010-04-29 17:27 ` Adam Beneschan
2010-04-29 18:42 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2010-04-29 0:47 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2010-04-29 7:37 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox