On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> What'd be a larger win would be if we have async I/O built into the core
> ...
> This is reasonably simple on Unices that support it, as well as on VMS and
> Windows. Can't speak for other platforms, but I'm not hugely worried that
> we won't get the win on, say, HP/UX 10.x or SunOS 4.x...
Just a point of information: Windows 95/98 can NOT do asynch
IO...I've just spent the last week researching this, and that fact is
clearly and frequently scattered through the MSDN documentation. You can
fake AIO by using an IO thread (which is generally worthless, given the
lousy W95 thread model) or by doing manual timeslicing, but you can't get
true AIO.
Just FWIW.
Dave
- RFC 310 (v1) Ordered bytecode Perl6 RFC Librarian
- Re: RFC 310 (v1) Ordered bytecode Michael Maraist
- Re: RFC 310 (v1) Ordered bytecode Simon Cozens
- Re: RFC 310 (v1) Ordered bytecode Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 310 (v1) Ordered bytecode Dave Storrs
- Re: RFC 310 (v1) Ordered bytecode Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 310 (v1) Ordered bytecod... Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 310 (v1) Ordered bytecode Simon Cozens
- Re: RFC 310 (v1) Ordered bytecode Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 310 (v1) Ordered bytecode Tom Hughes
- Re: RFC 310 (v1) Ordered bytecode Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 310 (v1) Ordered bytecod... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 310 (v1) Ordered byt... Simon Cozens
- Re: RFC 310 (v1) Ordered... Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 310 (v1) Ordered... Dan Sugalski
