Re: sizeof
- From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:13:18 -0400
ena8t8si@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:.... snip ...
Anytime you have concurrent processes contending for resources you
can have deadlocks.
False.
If the concurrent processes are unrestricted in resource use
then there can be deadlock. But a more conservative policy
for doing resource allocation can easily avoid deadlock (and
I don't mean just in trivial ways either).
Excuse my OT post; it bugs me when broad sweeping
statements are made that aren't even approximately correct.
Read what I wrote with a modicum of care. Can have does not mean
will have.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@xxxxxxxxx) (cbfalconer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE maineline address!
.
- References:
- sizeof
- From: pnreddy1976
- Re: sizeof
- From: Xicheng Jia
- Re: sizeof
- From: Andrew Poelstra
- Re: sizeof
- From: ada
- Re: sizeof
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: sizeof
- From: Malcolm
- Re: sizeof
- From: Andrew Poelstra
- Re: sizeof
- From: Kenneth Brody
- Re: sizeof
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: sizeof
- From: Kenneth Brody
- Re: sizeof
- From: Richard Bos
- Re: sizeof
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: sizeof
- From: Ben C
- Re: sizeof
- From: CBFalconer
- sizeof
- Prev by Date: Multiple Arguements like in printf
- Next by Date: Re: Multiple Arguements like in printf
- Previous by thread: Re: sizeof
- Next by thread: Re: sizeof
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|