Author: Lance Perkins
Date: 18:39:48 07/05/05
Go up one level in this thread
You missed the point here. I never claimed that a shared resource is a single memroy. Read again. Even on a single CPU you would need locks, mutexes, semaphores, events, mailboxes, etc to synchronize. But to say that all you need is a single-cpu to "test" your multi-threaded app is too naive of a statement. Most newbie programmers think that because they have used mutexes to guard their code segments, that they are already safe. Until the test team runs their code on multi-cpu machines and they fail misserably. Ever heard of a reputable software company that tries to save money and never buys multi-cpu machines for testing their multi-threaded app? If you find one, they would probably be out of business soon. --- On July 05, 2005 at 14:54:38, Steven Edwards wrote: >On July 05, 2005 at 05:02:54, Lance Perkins wrote: > >>Not true. >> >>Testing a multi-threaded app on a single-cpu machine is bogus. Its very easy to >>write a multi-threaded app. Its a no brianer. But to be sure that it actually >>works on a multi-cpu machine, you have to test it on one. >> >>On a single-cpu machine, the threads never run in parallel. A shared resource >>will never be accessed simultaneously. > >Wrong. You are limiting the concept of a shared resource to a single memory >access. A shared resource may be an entire table or even an executable object. >Without protection by, say, a POSIX mutex, a program on a single processor >machine running multiple threads may fail.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.