On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:04:38 -0700, Michel Fortin
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2010-12-18 15:57:50 -0500, "Robert Jacques" <[email protected]> said:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:27:22 -0700, Pelle Månsson
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/18/2010 10:00 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
The problem is that the OP wants the static constructors to be
skipped. If
they're skipped, anything and everything which could be affected by
that can't be
used. That pretty much means not using TLS, since the compiler isn't
going to be
able to track down which variables in TLS will or won't be affected
by it. So,
you're stuck using shared memory only. _That_ is where the problem
comes in.
Exactly, not using TLS. You can still use the heap, as it is not
thread local. Meaning you can create non-shared anything all you
like, as long as you're not using TLS.
Except that the 'heap' internally uses TLS. The GC does need and use
TLS.
Using D's TLS for the GC is an implementation choice, not a requirement.
If someone wants to optimize 'spawn' for pure functions by skipping D's
TLS initialization, he can make the GC and the array appending cache
work with that.
Not really, as _every_ modern GC requires TLS. And we're talking about a
performance optimization here: not supporting modern GCs in order to
remove TLS initialization would be a penny-wise pound foolish move.
Besides, 'mini' threads shouldn't be created using OS threads; that's what
thread-pools, fibers and tasks are for.
