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: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Hannes Haug Subject: Re: Fast locking (Was Re: Java vs Ada 95) Date: 1996/11/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 194868419 sender: haugha@chaq.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de references: <325BC3B3.41C6@hso.link.com> organization: Uni Tuebingen newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > My presumption is that those folks have portable Ada code in mind. > The machine semantics of test-and-set on whatever machine you are > describing would seem to be somewhat different from the Alpha AXP > load-locked/store-conditional semantics. A higher level construct > which supports portable programs seems better to me than something > specific to test-and-set hardware semantics. Something like an inlined mutex_trylock? This is something like test-and-set-lock. > (When I wrote about spin locks earlier in this thread, I thought we > were discussing techniques for compiler writers to use rather than > something exposed to Ada programmers.) The compiler writers should use fast locks and unlocks, too. I think the os-mutexes are not fast enough. -hannes