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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: Corey Minyard Subject: Re: Looking for implementation idea Date: 1999/02/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 441793618 Sender: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com References: Organization: Wonderforce Research Reply-To: minyard@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-02-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) writes: > > I'm curious -- where did you get the impression that protected > types did not work on a multiprocessor? I'm wondering how common > is this misconception... > Thanks for the reply. I would expect the average programmer would think of a protected type like a Java one, something more semaphore-like. I knew that it wasn't (and I know the reasons), but I would expect that when the average programmer puts something in a protected type they would expect it to be "protected" by mutex, which wouldn't happen on an SMP machine, but would on a uniprocessor one. 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)? -- Corey Minyard Internet: minyard@acm.org Work: minyard@nortelnetworks.com UUCP: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com