2011/6/27 Malcom Haak <[email protected]>: > OF WHAT? bad code? It would only look different if you are looking at > different parts of memory.. or you hadn't finished writing.
Are you serious? > Also what the hell are you on about? You could use CriticalSections in your > example and it would work fine. The fact you have one Thread doing nothing > for ever is a tad silly and to me shows you have no idea what you are > doing.. but that could be just because of the exceedingly limited scope of > the example. You haven't a clue. >> >> Core X computes a=b+c >> Core X+Y computes a2 >> > Why would you spilt this into different threads?? > If it is the same thread it does not matter if it moves CPU... > Your example is lacking in sanity. This code is written and compiled to execute in thread 1 as per example. Line T : Core X computes a=b+c Line T+1 : Core X+Y computes a2 T+1 most likely will be completed before line T is computed! And it is not poor practice to have threads communicating reading/writing variables. Your lack of understanding multi-threaded systems is evident. >> This is relatively new theory which required low-level CPU code to >> perform such locks. This was never needed until the introduction of >> multi-core systems. Of which I did extensive tests on AMD via >> FPC/Lazarus. >> > Yeah your just sounding silly here. As per Reimar Grabowski's comment, whats > the difference between multi-core and Multi-processor? > I'll tell you... accessibility to people who don't know what they are on > about. No. I speak with experience. Whether or not you are able to learn/comprehend what I am illustrating - that is a different matter. -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
