Re: GC + thread

From: Max Skaller (maxs@in.ot.com.au)
Date: Thu Mar 02 2000 - 03:24:09 MET

Next message: Stefan Monnier: "Re: Interpreter vs hardware threads"

Previous message: Michael Hicks: "Re: Interpreter vs hardware threads"
In reply to: Christophe Raffalli: "GC + thread"
Next in thread: Christophe Raffalli: "Re: GC + thread"
Reply: Christophe Raffalli: "Re: GC + thread"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Christophe Raffalli wrote:
> This extension is also necessary (it is easy to have realistic examples
> where the GC would collect much more thread with this extension).
>
> What do you think of that ?

Why is this necessary? In particular, because in/out channels have
reduced functionality, I have opted to use Unix.file_descr instead:
these are converted to/from in/out channels if necessary.

It seems to me this particular problem is part of a more general
one concerning resource acquisition and threads?

-- 
John (Max) Skaller at OTT [Open Telecommications Ltd]
mailto:maxs@in.ot.com.au      -- at work
mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au  -- at home

Next message: Stefan Monnier: "Re: Interpreter vs hardware threads"
Previous message: Michael Hicks: "Re: Interpreter vs hardware threads"
In reply to: Christophe Raffalli: "GC + thread"
Next in thread: Christophe Raffalli: "Re: GC + thread"
Reply: Christophe Raffalli: "Re: GC + thread"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 18:43:55 MET