On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:56:56PM +0100, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote: > Arthur Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >On torsdag, maj 9, 2002, at 03:16 , Nick Ing-Simmons wrote: > > > >> If you want same kind of abstraction for lighter-weight non-recursive > >> MUTEX stuff now would be a good time to make the case. > >> > > > >There already is that kind of abstraction > > > >MUTEX_INIT MUTEX_LOCK..... all same as 5005 threads. > > I meant a run-time switchable abscraction like SvLOCK which > ALWAYS does CALL_FPTR(PL_lockhook)(aTHX_ sv) > > And something populates the variable at runtime. > > Likewise we could have Perl_MUTEX_LOCK() always > CALL_FPTR(PL_mutexlock)(aTHX_ mutex) > > and have a dummy function for non-threads case. > +ve - This makes XS code binary compatible between threads/non-threads.
Is that relevant given that threads vs non-threads have different arch names and so extensions install into different directories? Tim. > -ve - extra overhead > > > > > > >Arthur > -- > Nick Ing-Simmons > http://www.ni-s.u-net.com/ > > >
