From dev-return-3813-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Sat Aug 04 03:06:19 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 47604 invoked by uid 500); 4 Aug 2001 03:06:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 47589 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2001 03:06:18 -0000 Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:02:03 -0700 From: "Roy T. Fielding" To: Jeff Trawick Cc: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: Conditionals... Message-ID: <20010803200203.H1122@waka.ebuilt.net> Mail-Followup-To: "Roy T. Fielding" , Jeff Trawick , dev@apr.apache.org References: <15207.12731.943499.735032@critterling.garfield.home> <20010802000343.D643@ebuilt.com> <15209.31521.952343.898121@critterling.garfield.home> <20010802100837.G643@ebuilt.com> <15209.40995.720313.919910@critterling.garfield.home> <20010803121152.J4847@ebuilt.com> <20010803154350.C1122@waka.ebuilt.net> <20010803163719.E1122@waka.ebuilt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.13-current-20010115i In-Reply-To: ; from trawick@attglobal.net on Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 09:16:02PM -0400 X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1-pre3 (http://amavis.org/) X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N > > All variables are an approximation -- cosmic rays can change the value as > > well, with only a slightly smaller probability than mid-increment time > > slices in a non-test system. > > hmmm... I've seen many fixes needed for several instruction sequences > which did not handle being interrupted (i.e. broken serialization); > unclear how many of the unrepeatable bugs are due to cosmic rays... > as a programmer I wouldn't want to assume that any of them > are... certainly the customers I'm familiar with would not accept that > as an answer :) Due to mid-increment time slices? All of the race conditions I have seen in practice have been due to I/O operations (not register loads). In any case, I have no doubt that such a condition can occur. I am simply saying that I don't care, and neither will the customer if I have written the code correctly. If I did care, *then* I would use locks. ....Roy