[concurrency-interest] spurious wakeups semantics
TEREKHOV at de.ibm.com
Fri Nov 4 13:16:00 EST 2005
Jeremy Manson <jmanson at cs.purdue.edu> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >>No one is really sure where they came from.
> > http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/birrell87synchronization.html
> This paper gives the same implementation that David describes as broken
> in the POSIX rationale, no?
Uhmm, he said:
: The POSIX rationale shows a piece of broken code and uses that to
: justify the possibility of spurious wakeups.
I have no idea what piece of broken code in the POSIX rationale David
was talking about.
More information about the Concurrency-interest