[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Conflicting Priorities in occam
Denis A Nicole wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Adrian Lawrence wrote:
> Specifying the meaning of SKIP guards
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Does this pseudo-occam capture what we mean by SKIP guards in PRI ALT?
> > [N]CHAN skip:
> > PAR
> > PAR FOR i = 1 TO N PRI ALT FOR i = 1 TO N
> > skip[i] ! SKIP
> > PRI ALT FOR i = 1 TO N = P[i]
> > skip[i] ?
> > P[i]
> I don't think so. The lack of a PRI on either of the PARs allows any
> relative ordering between the output commits and the PRI ALT, so we get
> _ N
> | | P(i)
Yes, PRI PAR everywhere. The back of the envelope included PRI, but they
got lost on the way to the screen :-(. Unfortunately, this seems not to
generalize when there are mixed guards.
A E Lawrence, MA., DPhil. adrian.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MicroProcessor Unit, 13, Banbury Road, Oxford. OX2 6NN. UK.
Voice: (+44)-1865-273274, Fax: (+44)-1865-273275