On Sunday 17 February 2008 21:57, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > +to and reading from the shared memory. Since the invention of the > > +multithreading concept, there is an ongoing debate about which way to > > +model concurrent activities is better -- shared memory programming or > > +message passing [Ousterhout 1996]. > > Isn't what you've called here "multithreading" more typically called > "shared memory multithreading" or something like that? > > Nice write-up, BTW.
I agree. I would add that POSIX pthreads is the de-facto standard a way to do shared memory programming, and MPI is the de-facto standard way to do message passing. I'm sure that message-passing has some failure modes (deadlocks) in common with shared memory programming, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear it could suffer from races too. --- One of the things I have come to realise in the past year or so is what a terrible programming model explicit shared-memory parallelism is. It's simply too hard for humans to understand and reason about (in all but the most trivial of applications): even small threaded programs are extremely hard to make sense of. J ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Valgrind-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-developers
