On 22 June 2012 13:04, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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?
Over what we had before we had coroutines. I know there are advantages, I'm just saying that personally I've been largely on the downside rather than the upside. >> 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. If you're implementing them on top of separate threads then you just have an obfuscated API to threads. -- PMM
