Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One more question:
=head2 Guarantees
... doesn't have anything about user data integrity. So when 2 threads access a PerlNum, they could get a mixture of the typically 2 involved words.
Potentially, yeah, though it's really unlikely.
But:
=item All shared PMCs must have a threadsafe vtable
The first thing that any vtable function of a shared PMC must do is to aquire the mutex of the PMCs in its parameter list
... seems to indicate that even whole ops like add P,P,P are atomic.
Yep. They have to be, because they need to guarantee the integrity of the pmc structures and the data hanging off them (which includes buffer and string stuff)
And how does user level locking play together with that?
I've not decided -- That was something I thought we might hash out as we abused the first half of the design doc. Personally I'm all for the user and low-level lock being the same thing, but that doesn't have to be the case. There are advantages and disadvantages to either way of doing things.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
