Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads

[Nick Ing-Simmons]

Chaim Frenkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Some series of points (I can't remember what they are called in C)

Sequence points.

>where operations are consider to have completed will have to be
>defined, between these points operations will have to be atomic.

No, quite the reverse - absolutely no promisses are made as to state of
anything between sequence points - BUT - the state at the sequence 
points is _AS IF_ the operations between then had executed in sequence.

So not _inside_ these points the sub-operations are atomic, but rather
This sequence of operations is atomic.

The problem with big "atoms" is that it means if CPU A. is doing a 
complex atomic operation. the CPU B has to stop working on perl and go 
find something else to do till it finishes.

>
><chaim>
-- 
Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.