harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rana Dasgupta" <rdasg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re: [drlvm][threading] is harmony-1951 a bug or a feature?
Date Wed, 22 Nov 2006 03:38:02 GMT
On 11/21/06, Weldon Washburn <weldonwjw@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/21/06, Elford, Chris L <chris.l.elford@intel.com> wrote:
> >>In general, I agree that spurious wakeups are something to be avoided by
> >> the implementation where possible [personally, I'd like to see them
> >> disallowed].  However, given that the spec allows spurious wakeups, it
> >> could actually be a valuable development tool to have an option to
> >> insert them extensively to help developers identify places where they
> >> have inadequately protected themselves against true spurious wakeups.
> >> Therefore, I could see this partially as a feature.
> >Yes!  I like this idea.  It should not be too hard to add to drlvm when
> the
> >time is right.
> This makes no sense to me at all, sorry. There are possibly other ways to
> develop good coding advisors. Making the VM a booby trap for all kinds of
> corner cases is not one of them :-)

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message