On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:10:36AM +0100, Stephan Houben wrote:
On 11/29/2010 04:33 PM, Oliver Bandel wrote:
Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de:
Am Montag, den 29.11.2010, 17:12 +0100 schrieb Oliver Bandel:
Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de:
You use shared
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:55 PM, oli...@first.in-berlin.de wrote:
(A thread-specific GC for thread-specific variables would help here,
making global locks only necessary when accessing global used variables.
But I don't know if such a way would be possible without changing the
GC-stuff
On 11/30/2010 12:55 PM, oli...@first.in-berlin.de wrote:
There is one problem with this... when you have forked, then
you obviously have separated processes and also in each process
your own ocaml-program with it's own GC running...
...neatly sidestepping the problem that the GC needs to lock
Am Dienstag, den 30.11.2010, 13:55 +0100 schrieb
oli...@first.in-berlin.de:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:10:36AM +0100, Stephan Houben wrote:
On 11/29/2010 04:33 PM, Oliver Bandel wrote:
Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de:
Am Montag, den 29.11.2010, 17:12 +0100 schrieb Oliver
Am Dienstag, den 30.11.2010, 15:04 +0100 schrieb Stephan Houben:
On 11/30/2010 12:55 PM, oli...@first.in-berlin.de wrote:
There is one problem with this... when you have forked, then
you obviously have separated processes and also in each process
your own ocaml-program with it's own GC
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 03:04:32PM +0100, Stephan Houben wrote:
On 11/30/2010 12:55 PM, oli...@first.in-berlin.de wrote:
There is one problem with this... when you have forked, then
you obviously have separated processes and also in each process
your own ocaml-program with it's own GC
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:29 PM, oli...@first.in-berlin.de wrote:
And here I see a thread-specific GC as a solution.
It seems to me that this way was not thought about before,
and people thought about changing the GC to be able to handle multiple
threads.
Instead I mean: each thread that is
On 11/30/2010 02:22 PM, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
I don't think this is the reason. Many people can ignore Windows,
actually.
The problem is more that your whole program needs then to be
restructured - multi-processing implies a process model (which is the
master, which are the workers). With
Am Dienstag, den 30.11.2010, 16:30 +0100 schrieb Stephan Houben:
On 11/30/2010 02:22 PM, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
I don't think this is the reason. Many people can ignore Windows,
actually.
The problem is more that your whole program needs then to be
restructured - multi-processing implies
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:07:31PM +0100, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 30.11.2010, 16:30 +0100 schrieb Stephan Houben:
On 11/30/2010 02:22 PM, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
I don't think this is the reason. Many people can ignore Windows,
actually.
The problem is more that your
What would be responsible for collecting the shared heap?
Cheers,
Jon.
Eray wrote:
Seconded, why is this not possible? That is to say, why cannot each thread
maintain a separate GC,
if so desired?
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription
Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de:
Am Sonntag, den 28.11.2010, 19:14 +0100 schrieb
oli...@first.in-berlin.de:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:50:58PM +0100, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote:
[...]
The main problem was that other languages have bigger standard
libraries, whereas OCaml has a
Am Montag, den 29.11.2010, 17:12 +0100 schrieb Oliver Bandel:
Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de:
Am Sonntag, den 28.11.2010, 19:14 +0100 schrieb
oli...@first.in-berlin.de:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:50:58PM +0100, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote:
[...]
The main problem was
Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de:
Am Montag, den 29.11.2010, 17:12 +0100 schrieb Oliver Bandel:
Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de:
Am Sonntag, den 28.11.2010, 19:14 +0100 schrieb
oli...@first.in-berlin.de:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:50:58PM +0100, Fabrice Le
14 matches
Mail list logo
