nil in SuspendedDelays???
John M McIntosh
johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com
Tue Jan 24 04:19:54 UTC 2006
Er, if we're messing with this, and with rescheduling processes when
you change priorities, do we want to consider how Processor>>yield
behaves? Should it allow a lower
priority process to run if there are no processes runable at the same
On 23-Jan-06, at 7:54 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
> Cees De Groot wrote:
>> Should this be adopted?
> The VW fix does seem overly complex for Squeak - the main issue is
> that in Semaphore>>critical: we can be interrupted between the
> following two lines:
> self wait.
> [blockValue := mutuallyExcludedBlock value] ensure:[self signal].
> Simply moving #wait inside the ensure'd block will cure the problem
> (for very, very specific and nitpicky reasons that I'm not going to
> explain in detail unless someone actually wants to know ;-)
> - Andreas
John M. McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
More information about the Squeak-dev