On Fri, 04 May 2001 15:55:38 BST, Alan Burlison wrote: >We might actually be better expending effort in providing a proper event >loop in perl - this is more likely to be achievable within the strictures of >the existing perl5 implementation, and if we are going to end up locking >everything anyway, it may not end up being any slower. I don't know how you ended up concluding "we are going to end up locking everything anyway", but this isn't true. USE_ITHREADS does very little locking currently, and I don't think that would be a good thing to change. Note that the "access to shared data through magic" idea should localize the locking to just the accessor functions. Sarathy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Artur Bergman
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Doug MacEachern
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Artur Bergman
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Doug MacEachern
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Artur Bergman
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Chris Stith
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Benjamin Sugars
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Chris Stith
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Alan Burlison
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Alan Burlison
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Gurusamy Sarathy
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Dan Sugalski
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Chris Stith
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Benjamin Sugars
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Dan Sugalski
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Benjamin Sugars
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Chris Stith
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Alan Burlison
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Chris Stith
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Benjamin Sugars
- Re: our :shared $foo / iThreads Chris Stith
