I suggest reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-blocking_synchronization

Chris

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Stephen Sinclair <radarsat1@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Graham Wakefield
> <lists@...> wrote:
>> You could use the terminology 'wait-free' instead to transcend the issue?
>> Though it seems that your reviewer is wrongfully assigning purpose of TAS to
>> locks, instead of seeing TAS as necessary to locks.
>
> Yes, I only read recently that there is a subtle difference in the
> semantics of wait-free and lock-free. I'll have to look into it a bit
> deeper, perhaps wait-free is a better description. I think one
> implies the other, but not the other way around.
>
> Steve
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>