«

I have two processes: one holds a semaphore and the other waits for
the semaphore. When the process which holds the semaphore is dead,
the deadlock occurs. My question is there is anyway (in semaphore or
operating systme) to avoid such situation? Thanks!

(Dean Stevens) wrote in
<>:

>I have two processes: one holds a semaphore and the other waits for
>the semaphore. When the process which holds the semaphore is dead,
>the deadlock occurs. My question is there is anyway (in semaphore or
>operating systme) to avoid such situation? Thanks!

The C programming language (the only topic in c.l.c) does not
know anything about semaphores, amphores or whatever-phores.

So, please don't crosspost this to c.l.c; thanks!

--
I wish life had a scroll-back buffer.

> I have two processes: one holds a semaphore and the other waits for
> the semaphore. When the process which holds the semaphore is dead,
> the deadlock occurs. My question is there is anyway (in semaphore
> or operating systme) to avoid such situation?

When you're under Win32, this is quite easy; just do a WaitFor
MultipleObjects on the semaphore as well as the process handle.

Dean Stevens wrote:
> I have two processes: one holds a semaphore and the other waits for
> the semaphore. When the process which holds the semaphore is dead,
> the deadlock occurs. My question is there is anyway (in semaphore or
> operating systme) to avoid such situation? Thanks!

If you're using UNIX SysV semaphores, you might want to use the
SEM_UNDO flag on your semget(). That tells the kernel to undo
all a process's semops if the process dumps core.

Duke

Duke Robillard <> wrote in <>:
Please do not crosspost to c.l.c, thanks; fup2 c.p.t set.
--
Air is water with holes in it.

(Dean Stevens) wrote in message news:< m>...
> I have two processes: one holds a semaphore and the other waits for
> the semaphore. When the process which holds the semaphore is dead,
> the deadlock occurs. My question is there is anyway (in semaphore or
> operating systme) to avoid such situation? Thanks!

<Fixed meaningless crosspost.>

Semaphores, threads, and the very concept of processes (and,
therefore, IPC) are not part of the C standard. Therefore, asking
about it in comp.lang.c is not a very good way to get good answers.
Next time, stick to a newsgroup focused on your specific topic and
don't scatter your posts to the wind. It's better that one experienced
person who knows what he's talking about see your post than a thousand
irritated Usenetters who don't know the answer but do know about the
etiquette of our fine medium.

(August Derleth) wrote in message news:< om>...
> (Dean Stevens) wrote in message news:< m>...
> > I have two processes: one holds a semaphore and the other waits for
> > the semaphore. When the process which holds the semaphore is dead,
> > the deadlock occurs. My question is there is anyway (in semaphore or
> > operating systme) to avoid such situation? Thanks!
>
> <Fixed meaningless crosspost.>
>
> Semaphores, threads, and the very concept of processes (and,
> therefore, IPC) are not part of the C standard. Therefore, asking
> about it in comp.lang.c is not a very good way to get good answers.
> Next time, stick to a newsgroup focused on your specific topic and
> don't scatter your posts to the wind. It's better that one experienced
> person who knows what he's talking about see your post than a thousand
> irritated Usenetters who don't know the answer but do know about the
> etiquette of our fine medium.

An expert C programmer has to deal with multi-process and
multi-thread. I certainly don't expect you know them. You are just
too stupid to be embarrassed.

Irrwahn Grausewitz <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
> Duke Robillard <> wrote in <>:
> Please do not crosspost to c.l.c, thanks; fup2 c.p.t set.

Moron Irrwahn Grausewitz, please get a life!

(Dean Stevens) wrote in
< >:
<SNIP>
>An expert C programmer has to deal with multi-process and
>multi-thread.
Which does not make it topical here.

--
If you don't care where you are, then you ain't lost.

Dean Stevens <> wrote:
> (August Derleth) wrote in message news:< om>...
>> (Dean Stevens) wrote in message news:< m>...
>> > I have two processes: one holds a semaphore and the other waits for
>> > the semaphore. When the process which holds the semaphore is dead,
>> > the deadlock occurs. My question is there is anyway (in semaphore or
>> > operating systme) to avoid such situation? Thanks!
>>
>> <Fixed meaningless crosspost.>
>>
>> Semaphores, threads, and the very concept of processes (and,
>> therefore, IPC) are not part of the C standard. Therefore, asking
>> about it in comp.lang.c is not a very good way to get good answers.
>> Next time, stick to a newsgroup focused on your specific topic and
>> don't scatter your posts to the wind. It's better that one experienced
>> person who knows what he's talking about see your post than a thousand
>> irritated Usenetters who don't know the answer but do know about the
>> etiquette of our fine medium.

> An expert C programmer has to deal with multi-process and
> multi-thread. I certainly don't expect you know them. You are just
> too stupid to be embarrassed.

Congratulations. You have just drastically decreased your chances of
getting any kind of help from this newsgroup.

There is a newsgroup dedicated to the subject that you want to discuss.
comp.lang.c is not it. Read the FAQ before posting here again.

Alex