From: scleary_at_[hidden]
Date: 2000-08-04 09:33:27
> As for those wanting to start with vast definitions...
>
> I'm not sure why we need to do this. Most definitions are well known
> to anyone who's done concurrent programming. Unless we're striving
> to come up with new jargon there's nothing to define.
Everyone knows what a "mutex" is. However, the problem comes with the
precise definition of a mutex. Is it recursive (i.e., can a thread lock it
if it already owns it)? Is it statically-initializable (so it can be used
in program startup/shutdown code)? These questions demonstrate the need for
a hard definition even of the simplest of synchronization primitives.
-Steve