Advertisement

Comparison of Synchronization Concepts

A Dissenting View
  • K. F. Gebhardt
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 167)

Abstract

The following article is a contribution that presents a somewhat dissenting view to the ongoing, almost ideological, dispute between different real-time concepts and standards as realized in a language or an operating system.

Keywords

Critical Region Shared Memory Conveyor Belt Mutual Exclusion External Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    A. D. Stoyenko, “A Schedulability Analyzer for Real-Time Euclid”, Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium 1987Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    E.W. Dijkstra, “Cooperating Sequential Processes”, in “ Programming Languages”, F. Genuys, Ed., Academic Press 1968Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    C.A.R. Hoare, “Communicating Sequential Processes”, CACM 21, 666, 1978MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Ben-Ari, “Principles of Concurrent Programming”, Prentice-Hall, 1982Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    W. Werum and H. Windauer, “PEARL Process and Experiment Automation Realtime Language”, Vieweg & Sohn, 1978Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Brinch Hansen, “Concurrent Programming Concepts”, ACM Computing Surveys 6, 223, 1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    N. Gehani and W.D. Roome, “The Concurrent C Programming Language”, Prentice-Hall, 1989Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. F. Gebhardt
    • 1
  1. 1.Berufsakademie StuttgartStuttgart 1

Personalised recommendations