Subj : Re: Challenge: Multithreading & Synchronization
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : doug
Date : Sat May 21 2005 01:01 pm


"Uenal Mutlu" <520001085531-0001@t-online.de> wrote in message 
news:d6n5bd$31f$04$1@news.t-online.com...
> "doug" wrote
>>
>> Uenal, you keep coming up with new magic to make your code work.  Do as
>> David asks - present a *complete* implementation of a recursive mutex 
>> that
>> is not slower than a non-recursive one.  (A win32 CriticalSection is not 
>> an
>
> The statement is not correct. What I said is that my implementation
> of mutex (both recurs and non-recurs variants) is at least 2x faster
> than the standard method of Windows (ie. the CriticalSection).
>
>> example - it's recursive to begin with.)  No magic, please - the full
>> implementation.
>
> I have neither the intent to be a free code deliverer for you, nor am I 
> going
> to disclose to you the internals of my code.
> My code works. If you doubt it then I can't help you. I can give you only
> compiled demo code (lib for MSVC++) for testing. Contact via email if
> interessted and specify what you would like to test, describe as much as 
> possible.
>
>

Here we go again.

All I wanted you to do was prove your assertion that a recursive mutex can 
be as fast as a non-recursive one in the 'initial uncontested case'.

You can't and/or won't do this.  That's fine.  I just wanted to make sure 
we're on the same page.

As for being a free code deliverer - don't worry.  I don't think anyone here 
will be touching your stuff anyway.

.