>>>>> "BS" == Benjamin Stuhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BS> My primary goal (it may not have come accross strongly
BS> enough) in this proposal was sharing bytecode between
BS> threads even with an ithreadsish model (variables are
BS> thread-private, except when explicitly shared). This
BS> requires that the bytecode not contain direct pointers to
BS> variables, but rather references with at least one level of
BS> indirection. Avoiding fixups/relocations and allowing
BS> bytecode to be mmap()ed are additional potential benefits.
BS> But my first goal was to not have one copy of each
BS> subroutine in File::Spec::Functions for each thread I run.
If you look back over several of the discussions in -internals, you'll
notice Dan in particular, pointing out that the optree (or it's
replacement) would be 'inviolate'. If for no other reason than to
avoid having to grab mutexes.
The actual disk version of the bytecode, is still way out.
(As a strange aside, This last discussion reminded me of someone's claim
that the IBM 360 executables were actually stored with self-modifying
io instructions. As the pieces were pulled off the disk, the next io
instruction ended up in the right place. Myth?)
<chaim>
--
Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
