that sounds sensible; but let me poke at the "havoc" thing a bit... I
have heard this stated informally several times. Is there some source
of related measurement information? Given that inline caching was
introduced to improve performance (and is still in use), it would be
interesting to see some actual benchmark results that nail this down.
My knowledge of CPU (hardware) memory caches comes Ulrich Drepper's
paper on the topic:
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/cpumemory.pdf
There are probably other papers out there more specific to implementing
very late bound languages, but this isn't an area I've looked at much.
Related question: does threaded interpretation still make sense these
days, what with all those sophisticated branch prediction units
around? Again: are there reliable sources?
Oh, by "multi-threaded" I meant multiple threads of execution running
the same machine code (as in POSIX threads), not threaded interpretation
(as in one of the ways to implement Forth like languages). If your
inline caches are changing the actual machine code, and multiple threads
are executing the same machine code, you can end up with race conditions
if your not very careful.
But you might find the answer to your question in Anton Ertl (and others
have done):
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/projects/forth.html
Your suggestions sound worthwhile, thanks a lot; I will have a look at
the places in the source code you mentioned. It seems you have
forgotten that "actives" example you announced, though. ;-)
Yes, I forgot, sorry. I've sent another note about actives.
-gavin...
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
