Tamas Rudnai wrote:
>> the point is that "atomic" is not a neutral word, have a precise meaning.
>> If he would say "move is fast" or "move is simpler" that is ok.
>> But "atomic"...
>>     
>
> Yes, that's true, "atom" I think is a greek word? And has the meaning of
> "undividable"? But just a century ago turned out that atom is dividable, so
> what is undividable? MOVLW 0x00 takes 4 FOSC cycles, so is that instruction
> atomic? :-)
>
> In my point of view 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_operation

> everything is atomic which cannot be distracted by
> interrupting it. So if two concurrent MOVE you do on the same source file at
> the very same time, only one of them will be succeed. In that script we
> could even put an error handler if the renamed file is there after the
> command (IF NOT EXIST ... GOTO ERROR - or something like that). With COPY
> and DEL you cannot achive the same goal as COPY+DEL (as doing the same as
> MOVE) are NOT atomic because another instantiation of the script can make
> the copy in the meanwhile before the DEL. If you intended you rewrite it to
> a networked environment with COPY+DEL will fail randomly for sure.
>
> Anyway, it's highly off now, I was just intended to show a possible
> workaround of the preprocessor problem.
>
> Tamas
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Nicola Perotto <nicola@nicolaperotto.it>
> wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> Alan B. Pearce wrote:
>>     
>>>> Uhm... are you sure that MOVE is atomic??? On ntfs and fat32? I
>>>> seriously doubt of this... and this can be, rarely, a problem!
>>>> We are speaking on m$ file systems...
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> It certainly takes less time than copying a file, because the only thing
>>> that moves is the directory entry. The file itself stays in the same
>>> position on the disk.
>>>
>>> Now whether or not the new directory entry is written, with its pointers
>>> intact before deleting the old entry is another matter I do not have
>>>       
>> info
>>     
>>> about.
>>>
>>>       
>> the point is that "atomic" is not a neutral word, have a precise meaning.
>> If he would say "move is fast" or "move is simpler" that is ok.
>> But "atomic"...
>>
>> PS: i'm sorry but my english is very bad and i'm not able to argoment so
>> well...
>> --
>> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>> View/change your membership options at
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist