Re: Threads

From: William Kempf (sirwillard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-04 11:29:44

--- In boost_at_[hidden], scleary_at_j... wrote:
> > As for those wanting to start with vast definitions...
> > 
> > I'm not sure why we need to do this.  Most definitions are well 
known 
> > to anyone who's done concurrent programming.  Unless we're 
striving 
> > to come up with new jargon there's nothing to define.
> 
> Everyone knows what a "mutex" is.  However, the problem comes with 
the
> precise definition of a mutex.  Is it recursive (i.e., can a thread 
lock it
> if it already owns it)?  Is it statically-initializable (so it can 
be used
> in program startup/shutdown code)?  These questions demonstrate the 
need for
> a hard definition even of the simplest of synchronization 
primitives.

The definition is simple.  A mutex is a synchronization primitive 
used to allow exclusive access to a shared resource.  What you're 
talking about isn't the definition, but the interface and semantics.  
The design, if you will.  This is *precisely* where I'm trying to go 
here.  I gave a small set of primitives to start with.  Now I've 
narrowed it even further to a single primitive.  Let's decide to 
start here and discuss the design and implementation of this 
primitive.