Andrews G.R., Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice, Benjamin /Cummings, 1991.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....in a single language. The science is limited to the chosen paradigm or language. Some popular paradigms are objectoriented programming [23, 26, 27, 16] imperative programming [24] functional programming [11, 19, 7, 14, 25] logic programming [33, 8] and concurrent imperative programming [4, 5]. Only the textbooks on functional programming and concurrent imperative programming give a formal semantics. Some languages are Java [23, 26, 22, 6] C [34] Ei#el [27] Prolog [33, 8] Erlang [5] Objective Caml [10] and Leda [9] Leda is presented as a multiparadigm language but it contains ....

Gregory R. Andrews. Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice. AddisonWesley, 1991.

....for fault tolerance rather than performance. Instead of inspecting a now serving variable, processors using a bakery lock repeatedly examine the my ticket variables of all their peers. The optimization has probably occurred to many other researchers. It appears, for example, in chapter 4 of [6]. next ticket : unsigned integer : 0 now serving : unsigned integer : 0 procedure acquire lock (L : lock) var my ticket : unsigned integer my ticket : fetch and increment ( L next ticket) returns old value; arithmetic overflow is harmless loop pause (L now serving my ticket) ....

G. R. Andrews. Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, CA, 1990.

....via mutexes, would require advanced analysis in order not to interfere with the additional synchronization imposed by the underlying HPF system. Given the concurrency granularity being the method level, we may generally state that methods can safely execute concurrently if they do not interfere [5]. Compiler analysis can be used for detecting some potential for intra SDA parallelism, however, a compiler is generally not able to detect all cases and therefore some support from the user is needed in order to exploit intra SDA parallelism to a greater extent. It is worth noting that our ....

G. Andrews. Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice. Benjamin/Cummings, 1991.

....an event class E where each of its instances e, e , e . corresponds to a visit to p during program execution (e represents the first visit, e the second, etc. 3. 3 Example Consider the readers and writers problem, an example discussed in almost every text book on concurrent programming [1, 3]. The processes and synchronization constraint specification in the readers writers problem with two writers and one reader is shown below. Reader1 Writer1 Writer2 repeat repeat repeat code1 (X) code2 (X) code3 (X) a) c) e) read(X) write(X) write(X) b d f forever forever ....

Andrews, G. R. 1991. Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice. Benjamin /Cummings.

....k, and is a finite set of all possible values of this attribute. In the model n reveals identity of the species occurring at each site k. The initial condition of the environment E is described by the vector No. The state space S of the vectors Nt is S = x 2 x. x j. The function 7r: S [0, 1] is a random field if N,e 7rt(N) i at any time t. The random field is a distribution assigning state probabilities. The properties of 7r(Nt) at any time t will necessarily depend on the probabilities of transition between the elements of S. Site k is surrounded by neighboring sites 5k; 5k C ....

....operation simultaneous reduction, because each array element is used as an operand to many reductions evaluated simultaneously over different overlapping intervals. This is distinct from what is usually referred to as Parallel Reduction, which involves parallel evaluation of a single reduction [1] or its variants. We designed and implemented several different algorithms for simultaneous reduction (see [20] and measured their efficiency on MasPar (see [13] As the result we selected a row column algorithm that takes advantage of fast xnet MasPar communication. 3.2.2 Higher Level ....

Andrews G. 1991. Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc. Redwood City, CA.

....threads will all be awakened, but only one of them will detect that its rendezvous has been enabled. That one will complete the rendezvous, and others will die. Thus, the first originating thread to indicate willingness to rendezvous will be the one that will transfer data. Guarded communication [4] can also be implemented. Discrete Event Communication. In the discrete event model of computation, tokens that are transferred between actors have a time stamp, which specifies the order in which tokens should be processed by the recipients. The order is chronological, by increasing time stamp. ....

....between processes is via rendezvous, which means both the sending and receiving of messages from a channel are blocking: i.e. the sending or receiving process stalls until the message is transferred. Some of the notation used here is borrowed from Gregory Andrews book on concurrent programming [4], which refers to rendezvous based message passing as synchronous message passing. Applications for the CSP domain include resource management and high level system modeling early in the design cycle. Resource management is often required when modeling embedded systems, and to further support ....

G.R. Andrews, Concurrent Programming -- Principles and Practice, Addison-Wesley, 1991.

....are called neighbors. A simple broadcast protocol has a processor initiate the broadcast of m by sending m to all if its neighbors. Similarly,anode that receives m for the first time sends m to all of its neighbors except for the one whichforwarded it m. This technique is commonly called flooding [1]. Depending on the superimposed graph structure, a node may be sent more than one copyofm. We call the number of messages sent in the reliable broadcast of a single m the message overhead of the broadcast protocol. For flooding, the message overhead is between one and two times the number of edges ....

G. R. Andrews. Concurrent programming: principles and practice, Benjamin/Cummings, 1991.

....the type system of LCS and its implementation can be found in [2, 3] 5 3. Programming with LCS, A complete example Region Labelling LCS programming is illustrated in this section by a simple image processing example known as region labeling. The description of the problem is adapted from [6]. An image is a matrix (assumed square here) of pixels, each being assigned a light intensity. A region is a set of neighboring pixels having the same light intensity. The region labelling problem is that of identifying the regions of a picture and assigning a region label to each of its pixels. ....

....is not a production solution however: Though we could run it satisfactorily on images of size up to 100x100 pixels on a typical workstation, that solution is quite space consuming. A production version would preferably implement a hierarchical version of the above algorithm, as described in [6], in which a few sequential cooperating processes compute regions on different parts of the picture. Pixel processors The behavior of an individual pixel processor is described below; it maintains a local state through its parameters constituted of a pair (light intensity x region number) It is ....

G. A. Andrews, "Concurrent Programming, Principles and Practice", Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1991.

....to check whether or not a concurrent system satisfies a CTL formula by applying a transformation strategy tailored to verification. Our method is illustrated by applying it to the verification of mutual exclusion and starvation freedom properties of the bakery protocol [42] the ticket protocol [4] and the bounded buffer protocol [12] We show how to extend our verification method to a larger class of concurrent systems and how it can be applied for performing backwards verification of safety properties. The chapter ends with a comparison of our verification method with related approaches ....

....X2) Thus, as desired, we have proved that lg, a, O) AF neg holds. 4. 5 Examples of Protocol Verification via Specializa tion Now we present the verification of three protocols by using our method based on program specialization: i) the Bakery Protocol [42] ii) the Ticket Protocol [4], and the Bounded Buffer Protocol [12] The Bakery Protocol and the Ticket Protocol ensure mutual exclusion between two concurrent processes A and B trying to access a shared resource. We verified that either of these protocols: i) indeed guarantees mutually exclusive accesses to the resource, ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

ANDREWS, G. Concurrent programming: principles and practice. Addison-Wesley, 1991.

....to the stack, i.e. no thread has visited marker a8, then no thread should be allowed to pop from the empty stack, i.e. treads must suspend at a5. We situation is similar for later visits to markers a5 and a8. Example 2. An example discussed in almost every textbook on concurrent programming (e.g. [1] , 3] is the producer and consumer problem. The problem considers two types of processes: producers and consumers. Producers create data items (one at a time) which then must be appended to a buffer. Consumers remove items from the buffer (if it is not empty) and consume them, i.e. perform some ....

Andrews, G. R. 1991. Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice. Benjamin/Cummings.

No context found.

Andrews G.R., Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice, Benjamin /Cummings, 1991.

No context found.

G. Andrews. Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice. Benjamin Cummings, 1991.

No context found.

G. R. Andrews. Concurrent programming: principles and practice, chapter 4. Benjamin/Cummings, 1991.

No context found.

G. Andrews. Concurrent programming: principles and practice. Benjamin/Cummings, 1991.

No context found.

Gregory Andrews. Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice. Addison-Wesley, 1991.

No context found.

Andrews, G. R., Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice, Benjamin Cummings, 1991.

No context found.

G. Andrews. Concurrent programming: principles and practice. Benjamin /Cummings, 1991.

No context found.

G. R. Andrews. Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice. Addison-Wesley, 1991.

No context found.

G. Andrews. "Concurrent programming: principles and practice". Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., US, 1991.

No context found.

G. R. Andrews, Concurrent Programming --- Principles and Practice, Addison-Wesley, 1991.

No context found.

G. R. Andrews. Concurrent programming: principles and practice, chapter 4. Benjamin/Cummings, 1991.

No context found.

G. Andrews. Concurrent programming: principles and practice. Benjamin /Cummings, 1991.

No context found.

G. R. Andrews. Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice. Addison-Wesley, 1991.

No context found.

Andrews, G. R., Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice, Benjamin Cummings, 1991.

No context found.

Gregory R. Andrews. Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, California, 1991.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC