On 2/5/13 4:23 PM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
I feel like there are (or may be) two very different topics going on
here. Can those reading fill me on whether each of these two points is
the goal?
(1) avoiding _crossings_ of rust-stack-segment-boundaries at
performance-inconvenient places.
Yes, this is a goal.
(2) asking that a block of code run placing a chunk of code "back on
the C stack" for some sort of "stack affinity" reason (the way
certain actions have to run on particular threads at an OS level)
Sort of. We would like to be able to run Rust code directly on the C
stack, both for performance reasons (e.g. DOM bindings) and for
correctness reasons (e.g. early initialization of the scheduler). But
much of this thread is questioning whether the division into "Rust"
segments and "C" segments even makes sense, given that all C really
cares about is having a large stack segment to work with.
(3) asking that a block of code be run _uninterrupted_, regardless of
stack, in the sense of not being suspended mid-block by the
scheduler.
Not a goal, as far as I see it.
Patrick
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
