On 11/21/06, Weldon Washburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/21/06, Elford, Chris L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>In general, I agree that spurious wakeups are something to be avoided by >> the implementation where possible [personally, I'd like to see them >> disallowed]. However, given that the spec allows spurious wakeups, it >> could actually be a valuable development tool to have an option to >> insert them extensively to help developers identify places where they >> have inadequately protected themselves against true spurious wakeups. >> Therefore, I could see this partially as a feature. >Yes! I like this idea. It should not be too hard to add to drlvm when the >time is right. This makes no sense to me at all, sorry. There are possibly other ways to develop good coding advisors. Making the VM a booby trap for all kinds of corner cases is not one of them :-)
