[M3devel] State of threads? pthreads not safe to use on some platforms?

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi all:
And yet to more on this, the first on the implementation of mutex abstraction theory based on await construct:
http://www.cs.rug.nl/~wim/pub/whh233.ps.gz

And better than that I guess, this with Useful Guarded Commands of Dijkstra's language, this is really a good idea to use it inside the ESC checker since it's its internal AST rep:
http://www.cs.rug.nl/~wim/onderwijs/concurrency/dikt.pdf.gz

Thanks in advance:


--- El dom, 17/4/11, Daniel Alejandro Benavides D. <dabenavidesd at yahoo.es> escribió:

> De: Daniel Alejandro Benavides D. <dabenavidesd at yahoo.es>
> Asunto: Re: [M3devel] State of threads? pthreads not safe to use on some platforms?
> Para: "m3devel" <m3devel at elegosoft.com>, "Dragiša Durić" <dragisha at m3w.org>
> Fecha: domingo, 17 de abril, 2011 10:31
> Hi all:
> it's possible to get yet another implementation of it,
> perhaps when we have the ESC we will be able to check it for
> Lock level annotations, earlier there was an
> implementation:
> 
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.34.1092
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.35.166
> 
> Is important to keep in mind this await construct
> annotation may be verified as the one in Locking Level, it
> would be interesting to see whether this means one can
> execute commands without locking, is in some way specifying
> locks underneath.
> 
> If you want to ask, if their statements is sound it would
> be good to ask if they might have a copy of the
> implementation
> 
> If this is better to check for checks under Pthreads module
> would be a good idea to use directly their semantics.
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> --- El dom, 17/4/11, Dragiša Durić <dragisha at m3w.org>
> escribió:
> 
> > De: Dragiša Durić <dragisha at m3w.org>
> > Asunto: [M3devel] State of threads? pthreads not safe
> to use on some platforms?
> > Para: "m3devel" <m3devel at elegosoft.com>
> > Fecha: domingo, 17 de abril, 2011 09:05
> > I am still puzzled with this... What
> > exactly do we have now? Do we have a version where
> things
> > work, or something? Or we don't have threads for cm3
> > anymore?
> > 
> > TIA,
> > dd
> > 
> >
>