| ??? 01/15/11 17:45 Read: times |
#180625 - I think this got away ... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I think this got away ...
My original post was on this issue Is the 'tradition' (DOS, the C library, ....) of wait I/O part of the reason for the prevalence of RTOS use. In my minicomputer days (when RTOS was but a glint in its fathers eye) I never used wait I/O. I believe that often the reason for using a RTOS is to avoid task b stalling while task a waits for I/O to complete which would never be the issue if no_wait_I/O was used. I DO use a RTOS for some things, just think it is often used 'automatically' where not using it would be better. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| it just struck me, is this why RTOS 'need' is so prevalent? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Two Camps Here | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Best Practice | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a similar discussion... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I have always maintained the belief... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "non-arbitrary" ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "Real" Processing exposed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Too Specific | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| sweeping generalisation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RTOS are very useful | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I think this got away ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Blocking/nonblocking I/O | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not The only reason | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I considered developer effort | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| code generator | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Another neat feature | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| there is such an attachment ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Lots of tools available | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not really | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Lots of C tools | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| widespread | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Missed the point! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Ecosystem | 01/01/70 00:00 |