It seems like it would still be useful for *optimizing* the implementation of STM in Haskell; in particular, small transactions seem like a great way to implement lock-free data structures by handling the non-composability of compare-and-swap.
So while you wouldn't implement "atomically a" by "XBEGIN; a; XEND", you might implement atomically by doing the transaction log as we do now, then using XBEGIN/XEND around the commit operation. -- ryan On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Austin Seipp <mad....@gmail.com> wrote: > Duncan Coutts talked a bit about this on Reddit here: > > > http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/pfnkx/intel_details_hardware_transactional_memory/c3p4oq7 > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Ben <midfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/02/transactional-memory-going-mainstream-with-intel-haswell.ars > > > > would any haskell STM expert care to comment on the possibilities of > hardware acceleration? > > > > best, ben > > _______________________________________________ > > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > > > -- > Regards, > Austin > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe