On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Edward Z. Yang <ezy...@mit.edu> wrote:
> Merry Christmas all! > > Is it just me, or does the Control.Concurrent.MVar documentation seem a bit > misleading? In particular, we should explicitly note the race conditions > for not just swapMVar but also readMVar, withMVar, modifyMVar_ and > modifyMVar, > and clarify that the safety guarantees of the latter three pertain to their > handling of asynchronous exceptions. > > It might also be good to tell people that if they need race-free operations > of this style, STM is a good alternative to look at, even if only one > variable > is being synchronized over. > This reminds me, I recall someone showing me some runtimes that implied for nearly all programs TVars had better performance than MVars. I can't find those results on google. I did find this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/haskell-cafe@haskell.org/msg50734.html The links in Don's mail are broken. It seems that Simon Marlow's paper directory didn't survive the server transition: http://www.haskell.org/~simonmar/papers/ Jason
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe