Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > On 22 June 2012 09:48, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> In my opinion, coroutines have been useful for us so far. Whether they >> remain useful, or serve us just as a stepping stone towards general >> threads remains to be seen. > >>From my point of view I've seen a whole pile of problems and not > really any advantages...
Advantages over what? > I particularly think it's a really bad > idea to have a complex and potentially race-condition-prone bit > of infrastructure implemented three different ways rather than > having one implementation used everywhere -- it's just asking > for obscure bugs on the non-x86 hosts. Fair point, but it's an implementation problem, not a fundamental problem with coroutines. You *can* implement coroutines portably, e.g. on top of gthread. But there's a portability / speed tradeoff. Kevin already explained we chose speed over portability initially, and that choice is open to revision. > Really it just breaks the general rule I prefer to follow that > you should write your code in the 'mainstream' of an API/platform; > if you head too close to the shallows you're liable to hit a rock. It's a good rule. Like for most rules, there are exceptions.
