Subject:
|
Re: NQC 2.0 and some math questions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:56:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2377 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Baum wrote:
> My personal feeling on this, however, is that if you're running around
> changing y amd z in one task while calculating with them in another,
> you're just asking for trouble.
I think that if you do something like this you should use a semaphore
to secure no tasks access y and z simultanously. But that wastes another
variable storing the sema.
--
/* Our e-mail addresses have changed. anne.jacob@get2net is only for
messages which are ment for both of us. Anne's mail should be sent to
eowyn@get2net.dk and mine to dungeonmaster@get2net.dk (prefered) or
c948605@student.dtu.dk. *** Geek by nature - Linux by choice ***/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: NQC 2.0 and some math questions
|
| On semaphores... There was a lot of discussion a long time ago on whether NQC should use semaphores to protect temp variables between tasks. There isn't an atomic test-and-set bytecode, so the only way I know of implementing sempaphore would be to (...) (25 years ago, 1-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: NQC 2.0 and some math questions
|
| (...) That's exaclty what I was thinking of doing. Originally, the compiler had no way of allocating temp variables which is why code for % couldn't be emitted. The temp allocator is now pretty good, so I could emit the above sequence, but it just (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
