From: Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: D.10
Date: 1999/04/13
Date: 1999-04-13T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3btgstzx7.fsf@mheaney.ni.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 7evc2d$p9i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com
Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes:
> In article <7evbm6$oto$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > I must say I don't see any ambiguity in the RM here, but
> > I have trouble with your question because the terminology
> > is vague ("A is atomic wrt B" does not have a clear
> > meaning in this context).
>
> This is a followup to myself to make my point a bit
> clearer. You can talk about operations being atomic, but
> not entities. So if your question is
>
> Is the operation Suspend_Until_True atomic with
> respect to itself?
>
> Then I think the useful answer is that the question is
> meaningless, and the technical answer is no!
Let me ask the question another way.
Is an invocation of operation Suspend_Until_True on a suspension object
by one task atomic with respect to an invocation of Suspend_Until_True
on the same suspension object by another task?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-04-13 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-04-12 0:00 D.10 Matthew Heaney
1999-04-12 0:00 ` D.10 Steve Quinlan
1999-04-12 0:00 ` D.10 James S. Rogers
1999-04-13 0:00 ` D.10 Matthew Heaney
1999-04-13 0:00 ` D.10 Robert Dewar
1999-04-13 0:00 ` D.10 Matthew Heaney
1999-04-13 0:00 ` D.10 Robert Dewar
1999-04-13 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney [this message]
1999-04-13 0:00 ` D.10 Robert A Duff
1999-04-13 0:00 ` D.10 Robert Dewar
1999-04-13 0:00 ` D.10 Matthew Heaney
1999-04-13 0:00 ` D.10 Tucker Taft
1999-04-14 0:00 ` D.10 Robert Dewar
1999-04-13 0:00 ` D.10 Robert A Duff
1999-04-13 0:00 ` D.10 Robert Dewar
1999-04-13 0:00 ` D.10 Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox