Is there a reason I should use SEM_create instead of just declaring a SEM_obj object in my class?

Tim James

I wish to define a class that uses a semaphore to make a method wait for an ISR. Is is valid to define a private SEM_obj member in my class (with a call to SEM_new in the constructor), is there a reason why I should/must use SEM_create or are both approaches equally valid?

If it makes a difference, I am using DSP/BIOS 5.41 with CCS4 targetting a C64+ series DSP.

Thanks in advance

Tim

over 14 years ago

0 ToddMullanix over 14 years ago

TI__Guru* 96960 points

Hi Tim,

Doing a SEM_create or a SEM_new with an app-owned SEM_obj are functionally the same. Some people want to minimize the amount of memory allocation that occurs, so they prefer the SEM_new approach.

Todd

0 Karl Wechsler over 14 years ago in reply to ToddMullanix

TI__Mastermind 20805 points

One small advantage of SEM_create() (and Semaphore_create() vs Semaphore_construct() in BIOS 6.x) is that create'd objects are available for view in ROV (runtime object viewer) (Kernel/Object View - KOV in CCSv3). Semaphores initialized with SEM_new() are not available in ROV/KOV.

Processors

Processors forum

Is there a reason I should use SEM_create instead of just declaring a SEM_obj object in my class?