Scribit Jonathan S. Shapiro dies 27/01/2007 hora 11:13: > As things have progressed, I am coming increasingly to believe that > the second model will never be used. In Coyotos, we appear to have > three cases: > > 1. Critical processes. These must operate in bounded resource > anyway. These processes have the property that they allocate but > never free. > > 2. Event-loop processes: these processes have a natural point where > GC can be done efficiently (the top of the event loop), and when it > is done at that point the result is probably more efficient than > free. > > 3. General processes. These were unlikely to be able to accomplish > the proof discharge in any case, and we always assumed GC for these.
What about providing the free primitive anyway? As you say, BitC won't have dependencies on Coyotos, and the free primitive could prove useful somewhere else. And it could prove useful in Coyotos, after all. Do you know if other system-level implementations in functional languages also went without primitives like alloc and free? (like the House project in Haskell) > > I'm also wondering how a process like the network stack described in > > "Network Subsystems Reloaded" would be written: it should at least > > be able to specify where to allocate space for objects according to > > the client they will be used for. > This is outside the scope of the language definition. Is it? I'd tend to think that it is impossible (or hard or inefficient) with BitC as it is currently specified. But I didn't dig that issue much. Curiously, Pierre -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
