On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:56:17 +0100, "Skybuck Flying" > <skybuck2...@hotmail.com> declaimed the following: > >>Hello, >> >>I'd like to see instruction execution enhanced with the following two ideas: >> >>1. A termination bit, and a terminator pointer. >>2. A alternation bit, and a alternate pointer. >> > Don't see it here... You've just enabled leaving lots of corrupted > data > structures in the system... (Imagine your "termination" branch is taken > after a call that allocated a 500MB block of memory, but before the call > that returns that memory to the system).
Honestly, I wouldn't bother responding to this kind of thing here on python-list. There's nothing about Python in the entire post. It's a CPU-level feature that "might" be able to be adopted eventually by the implementation of languages like Python. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that a feature like this would migrate first through CPU discussions, then through C compilers, then to PyPy, and finally might end up in CPython, if it got widespread use. But until it gets at least to the PyPy level, it's not of much interest here. (Even then, it'll be an obscure feature on a very specific platform, and probably of only cursory interest.) If this really IS worth doing, there'll be OS programmers all over it for years before it ever affects Python. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
