5b4
Subj : Re: Challenge: Multithreading & Synchronization
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Oliver Battenfeld
Date : Wed May 18 2005 05:30 pm

Uenal Mutlu wrote:

Hi,

>> yes. And with good reason. Why don't you?
> Because it's wrong. There is no need to synchronize threads. 
> Access to shared objects have to be synchronized, not "threads
> synchronized".

since you are obviously quite obsessed with terminology, allow me to quote
'The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition':

syn·chro·nize  
[...]
v. intr.
[...]
2. To operate in unison.

Please also note that access to shared objects has to be 'serialized'. A
concurrent access is what you want to avoid.

>> Familiarize yourself with the concept of 'monitors', many of the more
>> recently developed languages (or frameworks actually) have a built-in
>> implementation.
> Have you made own experience with them? 

Yes.

> Tell me more. 

Of what exactly?

> How would you use them for this task?

It's actually a bit of a triviality. I suggest you grab the next best book
on that - anything will do to get you started with such basic ideas. That
might even put your grand ideas into perspective or am I wrong in assuming
that there is another 'theorem' of yours coming up? :-)

> Solve this first, if you can :-), and then we'll see... :-)

It really doesn't hurt to do the homework yourself ...

-- 
Bye,
Oliver

.

0