Semaphore and/or POSIX in OS/2
Does anyone know if OS/2 supports POSIX functions?
If not, what does it have available for Semaphore?
If not, what does it have available for Semaphore?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
jkr
"I remember too many" -> "I don't remember too many OS/2 APIs" :o)
ASKER
Thanks for the link jkr,
However, the link you posted shows non-POSIX functions for semaphores.
Does OS/2 support both non-POSIX and POSIX semaphore functions, or does it only have non-POSIX functions?
However, the link you posted shows non-POSIX functions for semaphores.
Does OS/2 support both non-POSIX and POSIX semaphore functions, or does it only have non-POSIX functions?
Hum, the link covers the OS/2 API on semaphores. POSIX-wise, *IIRC* they stopped at an implementation level that was far from being productive. But, hey, I haven't written any code for OS/2 since '96, so there might have been some innovations going on, but *I*'d go for the API.
BTW, I just found that there is a "pthreads" lib for OS/2 also, they are very likely to implement semaphores.
ASKER
OK,
I'm want to leave this question open for at least a day, so as to see if anyone else has any more good links or info to add.
Did you know that many ATM machines still use OS/2?
I thought this was a dead OS.
I'm want to leave this question open for at least a day, so as to see if anyone else has any more good links or info to add.
Did you know that many ATM machines still use OS/2?
I thought this was a dead OS.
>>Did you know that many ATM machines still use OS/2?
>>I thought this was a dead OS.
Sure I do - but, at these times, the APIs were superb :o)
>>I'm want to leave this question open for at least a day
Take you time, someone might happen to be more recently involved with my once favourite OS :-(
>>I thought this was a dead OS.
Sure I do - but, at these times, the APIs were superb :o)
>>I'm want to leave this question open for at least a day
Take you time, someone might happen to be more recently involved with my once favourite OS :-(
ASKER
>>Take you time, someone might happen to be more recently involved with my once favourite OS :-(
So what made this once your favourite OS?
What did it have or had that made it preferable?
I’m just curious, and I know very little about it.
This is my first time working with it.
So what made this once your favourite OS?
What did it have or had that made it preferable?
I’m just curious, and I know very little about it.
This is my first time working with it.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
>>Yes, but they are rapidly being replaced by Microsoft Windows - based implementation:
>>http://www.computerworld.com/networkingtopics/networking/os/story/0,10801,83884,00.html?from=imutopicheads
Some are being replaced by Windows NT, but they're being replace gradually.
>>I now have to press 30% more buttons to do the same thing. Transactions seem to
>>take longer, but that gives me more time to enjoy the ATM commercial advertisements
More then likely, the program is slow because of poor programming, and not because of the OS.
The extra buttons are also caused by poor programming.
>>http://www.computerworld.com/networkingtopics/networking/os/story/0,10801,83884,00.html?from=imutopicheads
Some are being replaced by Windows NT, but they're being replace gradually.
>>I now have to press 30% more buttons to do the same thing. Transactions seem to
>>take longer, but that gives me more time to enjoy the ATM commercial advertisements
More then likely, the program is slow because of poor programming, and not because of the OS.
The extra buttons are also caused by poor programming.
ASKER
brettmjohnson,
Very interesting article.
Very interesting article.
>>So what made this once your favourite OS?
>>What did it have or had that made it preferable?
At *that* time (~'92, before NT3.1 hit the shelves), it was the only PC OS with preemptive multitasking and a full 32bit protected address space. When you were coding for 16bit Windows before, that was a big advantage.
>>What did it have or had that made it preferable?
At *that* time (~'92, before NT3.1 hit the shelves), it was the only PC OS with preemptive multitasking and a full 32bit protected address space. When you were coding for 16bit Windows before, that was a big advantage.
Take a look at the portable code based on pthreads
http://www.terimber.com/text/opensrc/thread.html
http://www.terimber.com/text/opensrc/thread.html
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Thanks everyone for your input.
Hmmm!
Sorry jkr, I meant to select your first comment as the accepted answer, and the other two comments as assist.
You still got awarded most of the points.
I couldn't compile the OS2 semaphore functions that was posted in your first link, but I was able to find similar OS2 functions by searching the header files.
Hmmm!
Sorry jkr, I meant to select your first comment as the accepted answer, and the other two comments as assist.
You still got awarded most of the points.
I couldn't compile the OS2 semaphore functions that was posted in your first link, but I was able to find similar OS2 functions by searching the header files.
>>Sorry jkr
No prob at all :o)
No prob at all :o)