Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 16:34:41 -0700 From: Friar Puck <p...@birchwood-abbey.net>
OK. The without-interrupts in hashtb.scm are actually spelled "with-table-locked". I replaced them with "without-interruption". The critical sections could probably be narrowed if aborts are now the sole concern. I'm not sure there's actually much narrowing to be had there. I had just previously re-implemented object-hash with a pair of weak tables and a mutex, so it seemed overkill for each table operator to also grab and release a mutex. I am assuming the user will serialize operations on hash tables, just like port or string operations. Yes. I also serialized access to the population of address hash tables. There was the tiniest room for a race. It took some cold load frobination, but I implemented a "serial population" in prop1d.scm to use in hashtb.scm, geneqht.scm and wherever. Why not just cover every population with a mutex? They're not performance-critical objects, and they are almost always global databases. BTW, I successfully removed string-head! from the runtime system, but then stashed the patch. If user threads are using strings serially, string-head! is no worse than substring-move!(?). I don't see a need to eliminate STRING-HEAD!. It disables interrupts only to block the GC, not other threads: the string can't be shrunk by the GC while we're doing STRING-HEAD!. _______________________________________________ MIT-Scheme-devel mailing list MIT-Scheme-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/mit-scheme-devel
