Subject:
|
Re: NQC 2.0 and some math questions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Oct 1999 16:12:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2597 times
|
| |
|
|
In article <FIyps4.A2F@lugnet.com>, "Robert Munafo" <munafo@gcctech.com> wrote:
> The official solution to the problem is to use a test-and-set primitive, but
> the "practical workaround" I was taught was to insert a random delay somewhere
> in the loop. You can also effectively solve the problem by having each task
> delay a different, fixed amount of time. I'll show that method here.
You're right - I forgot the delay (that's what I get for typing code from
memory).
Yeah, 'test and set' is the best solution, but unfortunately the RCX
doesn't have one. The bitflag stuff is a little ugly for my tastes, which
is why NQC does not allocate temp variables across tasks.
Dave
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: NQC 2.0 and some math questions
|
| Your proposed solution is susceptible to the "lockstep starvation" problem. Lockstep starvation happens when two tasks try to get the lock at the same time and execute the same code in lock step, like so: task 1: lock |= 2; task 2: lock |= 4; task (...) (25 years ago, 2-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
|
|
|
|
