"Simon Peyton-Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Ahem - how far would this be from a "real" multithreaded
> | implementation, i.e. one that could use a few OS threads to
> | take advantage of multiple CPUs in an SMP system?
> Not very far. We have had a working implementation of
> such a
| Ahem - how far would this be from a "real" multithreaded
| implementation, i.e. one that could use a few OS threads to
| take advantage of multiple CPUs in an SMP system?
Not very far. We have had a working implementation of
such a thing, but not in a robust releasable state.
S
___
"Sigbjorn Finne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yes, that's true at the moment, but it's something that we expect
>> to fix shortly. More precisely, Sigbjorn has been working on a
>> fix. It relies on using an OS thread to make a potentially-blocking
>> call, so it's a robust fix.
> Modulo set
"Simon Peyton-Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | The problem I think is with the lightweight thread implementation -
> | Win32 calls can (and will) block the OS thread that makes the call,
> | which blocks the entire system. Given that I'm wanting to write a
> | network server with a Win32 G
| The problem I think is with the lightweight thread implementation -
| Win32 calls can (and will) block the OS thread that makes the call,
| which blocks the entire system. Given that I'm wanting to write a
| network server with a Win32 GUI, this is obviously a Bad Thing.
Yes, that's true at
Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 11:44:22PM +1030, Antony Blakey ->
> Hi,
>I'm experimenting with GHC as a platform for writing a Win32 GUI
> application, and I've hit what I think is a brick wall.
>
> The problem I think is with the lightweight thread implementation -
> Win32 calls can (and will) bloc
