On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Ketil Malde <ke...@malde.org> wrote:
> > Hi, > > Browsing LWN, I ran across this comment: > > http://lwn.net/Articles/336039/ > > The author makes a bunch of unsubstantiated claims about STM, namely > that all implementations use locking under the hood, and that STM can > live- and deadlock. I've seen a lot of similar sentiments in other > places as well (comp.arch springs to mind). > > Now, I'm no expert on STM, but I was pretty sure these are incorrect, > and I certainly had the impression that Haskell's STM guarantees some > progress - which it couldn't in a deadlock situation. MVars can be simulated with STM, and MVars can semantically get in a deadlock situation, so STM can also deadlock. Admittedly, if you're using STM to simulate MVars, you're doing it wrong. Luke
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
