llw@ghostwheel.eng.yale.edu (Louis L. Whitcomb) (05/21/91)
In article <7730@ecs.soton.ac.uk> dbc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Bryan Carpenter) writes: In <LLW.91May17095750@corwin.eng.yale.edu> llw@ghostwheel.eng.yale.edu (Louis L. Whitcomb) writes: >... >The moral of the story: If you use OCCAM2, use explicit protocols - >even though they are cumbersome and restrictive. It is hard to track >down bugs without them. >Note that ihe implementation of channel communication in the newly >released INMOS ANSI C compiler does *not* suffer from this curious >design flaw. I haven't looked at inmos C very closely. How do they get round the "design flaw" (if that's what it is)? Bryan Greetings Folks: In a previous post, quoted above, I incorrectly asserted that the channel behavior in question (when sending and receiving processes disagree on number or size of communication events) differed between the OCCAM compiler and the new C compiler. My more learned colleagues remind me that the same behavior may be demonstrated in either environment. Postings by various authors have covered this topic pretty well. The Best, -Louis. -- Louis L. Whitcomb llw@corwin.eng.yale.edu ph: (203) 432-4237 Yale Robotics Laboratory fx: (203) 432-7481 Department of Electrical Engineering, 1968 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520