Subject:
|
Re: NQC 2.0 and some math questions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Oct 1999 09:22:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2500 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Baum wrote:
> There isn't an atomic test-and-set bytecode, so the only way I know of
> implementing sempaphore would be to use bitflags and assign one bit per
> task.
There is a way to do it even if you have no test and set, though I can't
remember it off the top of my head, and it is slow. Don't see how using
bitflags helps?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: NQC 2.0 and some math questions
|
| (...) I'm going from memory here, so I may miss a detail... int lock; #define TASK_BIT(task_num) (1 << task_num) void acquire_lock(int task_num) { while(1) { // wait for lock to be clear while(lock); // try to own it lock |= TASK_BIT(task_num); // (...) (25 years ago, 2-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
