On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Isaac Dupree <m...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote: > OK, thanks for the link! In fact, [tell me if my reasoning is wrong...], in > that fork-definition, the 'putMVar' will never block, because there is only > putMVar one for each created MVar.
Yes that's correct. > I seem to remember that any execution of > putMVar that does not *actually* block is guaranteed not be interrupted by > asynchronous exceptions (if within a Control.Exception.block) -- which would > be sufficient. Is my memory right or wrong? The following documentation seems to suggest that "any function which _may_ itself block is defined as interruptible": http://haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/base-4.2.0.0/Control-Exception.html#13 That doesn't answer your question precisely however. If it is the case that operations are only interruptible when they actually block then I don't need a nonInterruptibleMask in this last example. However I still need one in my first example because the takeMVar in decrement may absolutely block. regards, Bas _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
