From: Stefen Boyd (stefen@boyd.com)
Date: Fri Jan 31 2003 - 15:43:01 PST
Message-ID: <D58D987E20BAD2118A420090273BF41F05871DAD@out.model.com>
From: Jamie LaFlamme <jamiel@model.com>
To: "'btf@boyd.com'" <btf@boyd.com>
Subject: fork..join in automatic tasks/functions
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:00:15 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2C963.5F346FD4"
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C963.5F346FD4
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
I haven't found any information in the 1364-2001 LRM that describes the
expected behavior of fork..join statements within an automatic task or
function. Has there been any discussion about whether each statement within
the fork-join block should have its own copy of the automatic variables or
whether the statments should behave as if all automatic variables are
shared? Maybe the behavior intended to be implementation-defined?
Thanks,
-Jamie LaFlamme
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C963.5F346FD4
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
I haven't found any information in the 1364-2001 LRM that describes the expected behavior of fork..join statements within an automatic task or function. Has there been any discussion about whether each statement within the fork-join block should have its own copy of the automatic variables or whether the statments should behave as if all automatic variables are shared? Maybe the behavior intended to be implementation-defined?
Thanks,
-Jamie LaFlamme
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C963.5F346FD4--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Fri Jan 31 2003 - 15:43:44 PST
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.