Benjamin Franksen wrote:
> Anyway: I'd rather have the Symb support with semaphore protection than
> with no protection at all.
Jeff Hill wrote:
> Sorry to nit pick, I obviously was not thinking about your unique situation. I Agree that
> if the user is changing the variable from the shell or any other task level program
> that does not use the mutex semaphore then at least taskLock() will be required,
> and that if ISRs are involved then intLock() will be required to solve both problems.
> If multiple processors and also interrupts are involved then a global solution may
> prove to be elusive. I still worry that an exception might occur while intLock() is applied,
> but perhaps this risk is worth taking in order to allow unconstrained synchronized
> access to globally known variables.
Ok it sounds like there are no strong objections to intLock/intUnlock.
Benjamin can you make and test the changes?
Marty Kraimer
- Replies:
- Re: Proposal for boosted Symb device support Benjamin Franksen
- References:
- RE: Proposal for boosted Symb device support Jeff Hill
- Re: Proposal for boosted Symb device support Benjamin Franksen
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: IndustryPack perspectives Andrew Johnson
- Next:
Re: Proposal for boosted Symb device support Benjamin Franksen
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
<1998>
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: Proposal for boosted Symb device support Benjamin Franksen
- Next:
Re: Proposal for boosted Symb device support Benjamin Franksen
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
<1998>
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|