i mentioned that the pool library can act as a big
kernel lock a few weeks ago. i don't know if anyone
has thoughts on how to deal with this.
it isn't really a `big kernel lock' in the linux sense.
the big kernel lock was the device by which operating systems
written with only a uniprocessor
it isn't really a `big kernel lock' in the linux sense.
you're right, technically it is a very different problem.
the effects seem similar. the lock is just in the block allocator
rather than the syscall interface. if you're doing a lot of i/o
in a standard kernel, there's a lot of block
On Fri Sep 18 11:52:23 EDT 2009, driv...@0xabadba.be wrote:
Is there some method of lock profiling on plan9? For example when I do
work on freebsd and say remove a giant lock from the keyboard subsystem; I
run the lock profiler before and after the change to see how long the system
we'd have been much better off if Apple had instead spent the
time and effort writing a decent iTunes, or opening their platform
interfaces enough that someone else could do it (and on Linux, not just Mac or
Windows).
On Sep 17, 2009, at 2:43 AM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
opening their platform interfaces
Any in particular?
—
Daniel Lyons
Like shuffle db (i.e. no iTunes).
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:19 AM, Andrew Simmons kod...@gmail.com wrote:
we'd have been much better off if Apple had instead spent the
time and effort writing a decent iTunes
And no doubt we'd have been much better off if Apple had instead spent the
time
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Charles Forsyth fors...@terzarima.netwrote:
we'd have been much better off if Apple had instead spent the
time and effort writing a decent iTunes, or opening their platform
interfaces enough that someone else could do it (and on Linux, not just Mac
or
On Sep 17, 2009, at 3:19 AM, Andrew Simmons wrote:
And no doubt we'd have been much better off if Apple had instead
spent the
time and effort making a decent iPod.
Um... what is it you dislike about the iPod?
—
Daniel Lyons
David Leimbach wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Charles Forsyth
fors...@terzarima.net mailto:fors...@terzarima.net wrote:
we'd have been much better off if Apple had instead spent the
time and effort writing a decent iTunes, or opening their platform
interfaces enough
Not meaning to add fuel to the fire, but;
On Sep 17, 2009, at 7:38 PM, Jack Norton wrote:
I hate iTunes with a passion. It is a huge monolithic godlike
creature that tries to do everything for me (usually when I don't
want it to). It brings my 12 powerbook to a screeching halt (I get
What I was referring to was Plan 9's ability
(or lack thereof) to decode and play digital video codecs. Just one of those
things that prevent someone from running only Plan 9 on their computers --
you need one of the big 3 for web browser + video.
With Cinap Lenrek's work on linuxemu, one can
... In case anyone is wondering what they could be doing instead of feeding
this massive thread more fatty foods.
there's lots of complaining on the list about the
content of the list.
it's not like there aren't good meaty issues to discuss.
what happened with either of the recently-reported
http://ninetimes.cat-v.org/news/2009/09/07/0-mplayer9/
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Anant Narayanan an...@kix.in wrote:
On Sep 17, 2009, at 10:26 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
Good luck trying to get Plan 9 to play video!
minooka; lc /sys/src/9/pc/*tv*.c
devtv.c vgatvp3020.c
what happened with either of the recently-reported
fossil lockup problems, for instance?
As I now have two servers at home (old and new) I have been trying
to provoke the old one into locking up so I can take a snap of its fossil.
sadly the old server has been irriatingly reliable and the only
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 17:02 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
... In case anyone is wondering what they could be doing instead of feeding
this massive thread more fatty foods.
there's lots of complaining on the list about the
content of the list.
it's not like there aren't good meaty issues
It would be easy to say that list should be divided, in practice
though, I'm not sure the folks who I would like to have a privilege
of addressing would voluntarily subscribe to the #3 type of list.
Being a curious sometime user I guess I fall in category 3. Which
seems natural since the
Apple has an interesting process for releasing open source code. One of the
guys that works on it wrote something up on it once, but I am sorry I don't
have a pointer right now.
I would not assume that the it's the same bits that are used inside Apple.
Certainly at the very least, many
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Anant Narayanan an...@kix.in wrote:
On Sep 11, 2009, at 10:36 PM, Roman V Shaposhnik wrote:
I still do care very much (and in fact, I've been meaning
to provide some of the answers on this mailing list, but
apparently one can't upgrade to Snow Leopard over
On Sep 11, 2009, at 10:36 PM, Roman V Shaposhnik wrote:
I still do care very much (and in fact, I've been meaning
to provide some of the answers on this mailing list, but
apparently one can't upgrade to Snow Leopard over the
net so I have to physically drive to the Mac store :-().
Anyway, for a
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Bakul Shah bakul+pl...@bitblocks.com wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:31:28 PDT David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com wrote:
Having wrestled with this stuff a little bit, and written something. I
can immediately see how one can get away from needing to select in code
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Iruata Souza iru.mu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Bakul Shah
bakul+pl...@bitblocks.combakul%2bpl...@bitblocks.com
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:31:28 PDT David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com
wrote:
Having wrestled with this stuff a
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Roman V Shaposhnik r...@sun.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 15:15 -0300, Iruata Souza wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Bakul Shah
bakul+pl...@bitblocks.combakul%2bpl...@bitblocks.com
wrote:
int x;
void trash_x() { x = -42; }
... ^{
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:31:28 PDT David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com wrote:
Having wrestled with this stuff a little bit, and written something. I
can immediately see how one can get away from needing to select in code so
much, and fire off blocks to handle client server interactions etc.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:31 PM, David Leimbachleim...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
I guess we'll see what happens.
We all know what will happen: more and more layers of crud will be added.
Just as Russ predicted:
From: r...@plan9.bell-labs.com (Russ Cox)
Subject: Re: [9fans] design clairvoyance
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Uriel urie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Greg Comeaucom...@panix.com wrote:
In article 25cf9336-c071-44a5-ab04-6bb042bc5...@kix.in,
Anant Narayanan an...@kix.in wrote:
I understand the argument that blocks don't feel C-like, but the
In article 25cf9336-c071-44a5-ab04-6bb042bc5...@kix.in,
Anant Narayanan an...@kix.in wrote:
I understand the argument that blocks don't feel C-like, but the
argument that you can do everything with just using function pointers
is BS.
Even one step further, even if we all agree blocks are BS,
In article 8214db3a-3368-4b61-b0cd-bac5f2be7...@sun.com,
Roman Shaposhnik r...@sun.com wrote:
There's been a *lot* of speculation on this thread and very little fact.
I'd encourage everybody to play with the feature before forming
any kind of final judgement.
This is true, a good point, etc,
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Greg Comeaucom...@panix.com wrote:
In article 25cf9336-c071-44a5-ab04-6bb042bc5...@kix.in,
Anant Narayanan an...@kix.in wrote:
I understand the argument that blocks don't feel C-like, but the
argument that you can do everything with just using function pointers
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:54 PM, erik quanstromquans...@quanstro.net wrote:
Plan 9 has a lot to offer and a lot for others to learn from. Concurrency
framework that could scale up to 1K [virtual]cores in an SMP
configuration is not one of those features though.
forgive the ignorance, but is
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:50 PM, David Leimbachleim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:36 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net
wrote:
Apple's using it all over the place in Snow Leopard, in all their
native
apps to write cleaner, less manual-lock code. At least,
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:56 PM, David Leimbachleim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:20 AM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net
wrote:
I could be wrong, but I feel like you're not really interested in
entertaining that this idea could be useful, but more interested in
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:44:35 EDT erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
that sucker is on the stack. by-by no-execute stack.
I don't think so. See below.
how does it get to the stack? is it just copied from
the text segment or is it compiled at run time?
I don't think I
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:35:35 PDT David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, reading on a bit more they deal with the variable capture
talking about const copies.
Automatic storage variables not marked with __block are imported as
const copies.
The simplest example is that of
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Bakul Shah
bakul+pl...@bitblocks.combakul%2bpl...@bitblocks.com
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:35:35 PDT David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, reading on a bit more they deal with the variable capture
talking about const copies.
In article 5d375e920909030832i17c62bc7mbb1afc55708e0...@mail.gmail.com,
Uriel urie...@gmail.com wrote:
So libthread must be a figment of 9fan's imagination...
Of course, for Apple (or anyone else) to learn from Plan 9 would be
impossible, so instead they had to add a new 'feature' to C.
Apple,
In article a0e8c7a229da95a64783d23f913e7...@quanstro.net,
erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
Apple's using it all over the place in Snow Leopard, in all their native
apps to write cleaner, less manual-lock code. At least, that's the claim
:-).
could someone explain this to me? i'm
In article 1251993672.16936.4779.ca...@work.sfbay.sun.com,
Roman V Shaposhnik r...@sun.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 08:44 -0700, David Leimbach wrote:
The blocks aren't interesting at all by themselves, I totally agree
with that. However what they do to let you write a function inline,
In article 3e1162e60909030844r8760a8fu1b27d6e60965e...@mail.gmail.com,
David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com wrote:
The blocks aren't interesting at all by themselves, I totally agree with
that. However what they do to let you write a function inline, that can be
pushed to another function, to be
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 5:14 AM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.netwrote:
But this has no more to do with parallelism than any other
feature of C. If you used __block vars in a block, you'd
still need to lock them when the block is called from
different threads.
that's a lot worse than
I could be wrong, but I feel like you're not really interested in
entertaining that this idea could be useful, but more interested in
shooting it down. That's fine, people do that all the time. People
are *constantly* saying Plan 9 is a huge waste of time too. And if
you count the
I could be wrong, but I feel like you're not really interested in
entertaining that this idea could be useful, but more interested in shooting
it down [...]
remember, if a guy says to the king, hey you're fly's undone,
we send that guy to the stockades for a week. meanwhile
the king's fly
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Bakul Shah
bakul+pl...@bitblocks.combakul%2bpl...@bitblocks.com
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:47:18 PDT David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Bakul Shah
bakul+pl...@bitblocks.com bakul%2bpl...@bitblocks.com
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:47:18 PDT David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Bakul Shah
bakul+pl...@bitblocks.combakul%2bpl...@bitblocks.com
wrote:
But this has no more to do with parallelism than any other
feature of C. If you used __block vars in a block,
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:04:40 PDT David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Bakul Shah
bakul+pl...@bitblocks.combakul%2bpl...@bitblocks.com
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:47:18 PDT David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:11 AM,
There's been a *lot* of speculation on this thread and very little fact.
I'd encourage everybody to play with the feature before forming
any kind of final judgement.
On Sep 3, 2009, at 8:52 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
Did you even read the article or any of the examples? There are
plenty
of
On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:14 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
But this has no more to do with parallelism than any other
feature of C. If you used __block vars in a block, you'd
still need to lock them when the block is called from
different threads.
that's a lot worse than a function pointer. with
a
On Sep 4, 2009, at 2:15 AM, Greg Comeau wrote:
In article 1251993672.16936.4779.ca...@work.sfbay.sun.com,
Roman V Shaposhnik r...@sun.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 08:44 -0700, David Leimbach wrote:
The blocks aren't interesting at all by themselves, I totally agree
with that. However
Where exactly does it say that?
dispatch_block_t p;
if(cond){
p =^ { print(cond\n); };
}else{
p =^ { print(cond\n); };
}
p();
since the first part is equivalent to
if(cond){
struct Block _t = ...;
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Roman Shaposhnikr...@sun.com wrote:
There's been a *lot* of speculation on this thread and very little fact.
(...)
Trust me, I've seen how it is generated.
so we should trust you and not the facts? is that what you are saying?
because i haven't seen any
On Sep 4, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Iruata Souza wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Roman Shaposhnikr...@sun.com wrote:
There's been a *lot* of speculation on this thread and very little
fact.
(...)
Trust me, I've seen how it is generated.
so we should trust you and not the facts? is that what
as i believe was originally explained,
i ripped that example *directly* from the apple grand central
documentation on page 37 in the Data Types section:
http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Performance/Reference/GCD_libdispatch_Ref/GCD_libdispatch_Ref.pdf
maybe you don't
In article 3096bd910909020708ja0bd77cye65f7000b...@mail.gmail.com,
Rodolfo kix k...@kix.es wrote:
I don't like it, but the question is: do you need it?
If you can do the same code with 8c, without much efford, then
probably you don't need it.
Again, playing devil's advocate: That seems to
In article 8ccc8ba40909020243o275a0340jfea84860a5d2c...@mail.gmail.com,
Francisco J Ballesteros n...@lsub.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayananan...@kix.in wrote:
Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
support for blocks in C [1]. Blocks
In article 5d375e920909020532p1c3bd46l75d89db4f2243...@mail.gmail.com,
Uriel urie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayananan...@kix.in wrote:
Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
support for blocks in C [1]. Blocks basically add
Greg Comeau wrote:
[... stuff ...]
These four posts seem to be in indirect
conversation with Charles Forsyth's,
one thing that gets me is that i've had
people fulminate about the few minor
changes in Plan 9's C compilers,
because `they are not standard'
Perhaps he can further elaborate.
ak
Perhaps he [me?] can further elaborate.
i certainly did not have comeau in mind.
In article fe41879c0909030348o2155c471vbc4da020f1419...@mail.gmail.com,
Akshat Kumar aku...@mail.nanosouffle.net wrote:
Greg Comeau wrote:
[... stuff ...]
These four posts seem to be in indirect
conversation with Charles Forsyth's,
one thing that gets me is that i've had
people fulminate about
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Devon H. O'Delldevon.od...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/2 Uriel urie...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayananan...@kix.in wrote:
Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
support for blocks in C [1]. Blocks basically
So libthread must be a figment of 9fan's imagination...
Of course, for Apple (or anyone else) to learn from Plan 9 would be
impossible, so instead they had to add a new 'feature' to C.
uriel
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:07 PM, David Leimbachleim...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone actually looked at
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Uriel urie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Devon H. O'Delldevon.od...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/9/2 Uriel urie...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayananan...@kix.in wrote:
Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 17:32 +0200, Uriel wrote:
So libthread must be a figment of 9fan's imagination...
Of course, for Apple (or anyone else) to learn from Plan 9 would be
impossible, so instead they had to add a new 'feature' to C.
Plan 9 has a lot to offer and a lot for others to learn
Plan 9 has a lot to offer and a lot for others to learn from. Concurrency
framework that could scale up to 1K [virtual]cores in an SMP
configuration is not one of those features though.
forgive the ignorance, but is there any such thing as a
1k-core smp machine? and is apple doing such a
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 08:44 -0700, David Leimbach wrote:
The blocks aren't interesting at all by themselves, I totally agree
with that. However what they do to let you write a function inline,
that can be pushed to another function, to be executed on a concurrent
FIFO, is where the real
The blocks aren't interesting at all by themselves, I totally agree with
that. However what they do to let you write a function inline, that can be
pushed to another function, to be executed on a concurrent FIFO, is where
the real power comes out.
this reminds me of paul and byron's shell,
On Thu Sep 3 12:20:09 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 11:54 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
Plan 9 has a lot to offer and a lot for others to learn from. Concurrency
framework that could scale up to 1K [virtual]cores in an SMP
configuration is not one of those features
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 11:54 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
Plan 9 has a lot to offer and a lot for others to learn from. Concurrency
framework that could scale up to 1K [virtual]cores in an SMP
configuration is not one of those features though.
forgive the ignorance, but is there any such
Apple's using it all over the place in Snow Leopard, in all their native
apps to write cleaner, less manual-lock code. At least, that's the claim
:-).
could someone explain this to me? i'm just missing how
naming a block of code could change its locking properties.
- erik
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:02 AM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.netwrote:
The blocks aren't interesting at all by themselves, I totally agree with
that. However what they do to let you write a function inline, that can
be
pushed to another function, to be executed on a concurrent FIFO,
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:58 AM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.netwrote:
Apple's using it all over the place in Snow Leopard, in all their native
apps to write cleaner, less manual-lock code. At least, that's the claim
:-).
could someone explain this to me? i'm just missing how
Apple's using it all over the place in Snow Leopard, in all their native
apps to write cleaner, less manual-lock code. At least, that's the claim
:-).
could someone explain this to me? i'm just missing how
naming a block of code could change its locking properties.
The
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:36 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.netwrote:
Apple's using it all over the place in Snow Leopard, in all their
native
apps to write cleaner, less manual-lock code. At least, that's the
claim
:-).
could someone explain this to me? i'm just
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:50 PM, David Leimbachleim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:36 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net
wrote:
Apple's using it all over the place in Snow Leopard, in all their
native
apps to write cleaner, less manual-lock code. At least,
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 15:36 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
Apple's using it all over the place in Snow Leopard, in all their native
apps to write cleaner, less manual-lock code. At least, that's the
claim
:-).
could someone explain this to me? i'm just missing how
naming
On Thu Sep 3 17:09:01 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote:
Anything can be done using regular C and threads. The trick here
is to make everything *scalable* and *painless* enough so that
mere mortals can start benefiting from parallelism in their code.
The other trick here is to find a model that
Roman V Shaposhnik wrote:
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 11:54 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
even commodity intel and amd mp offerings are numa.
they're not very n, but they're still n.
True. But even for those platforms good SMP frameworks are quite
difficult to come by. And here I do mean
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:49 PM, David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:45 PM, David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.netwrote:
On Thu Sep 3 17:09:01 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote:
Anything can
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.netwrote:
On Thu Sep 3 17:09:01 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote:
Anything can be done using regular C and threads. The trick here
is to make everything *scalable* and *painless* enough so that
mere mortals can start benefiting
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:45 PM, David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.netwrote:
On Thu Sep 3 17:09:01 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote:
Anything can be done using regular C and threads. The trick here
is to make everything
On Sep 3, 2009, at 9:44 AM, David Leimbach wrote:
I'm not 100% sure why the heck they did it this way, which is
totally different from any other version of concurrent programming
setup I've seen, except maybe that Apple likes to think different?
This API looks a lot to me like doing
On Sep 3, 2009, at 10:02 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
in c, i don't see why such a bolt-on would be useful in
c, especially since your concurrent fifo would be limited
to one shared-memory node unless you're going to add a runtime
compiler.
It's primarily an aesthetic benefit. From
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 17:35 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
On Thu Sep 3 17:09:01 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote:
Anything can be done using regular C and threads. The trick here
is to make everything *scalable* and *painless* enough so that
mere mortals can start benefiting from parallelism in
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 12:44 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
On Thu Sep 3 12:20:09 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 11:54 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
Plan 9 has a lot to offer and a lot for others to learn from.
Concurrency
framework that could scale up to 1K
i'll grant you this in implementation. the pool library's lock
in effect becomes plan 9's BLK. since the pool library is used
in the kernel and user space, a user space application gets hit
twice. i've been doing some full-tilt boogie testing with 2x10gbe
and even with 2 cores, the
what does BLK stand for?
big kernel lock.
- erik
To ensure only one thread in the kernel at a time?
-jt-
--Original Message--
From: erik quanstrom
Sender: 9fans-boun...@9fans.net
To: 9fans@9fans.net
ReplyTo: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
Subject: Re: [9fans] Blocks in C
Sent: Sep 3, 2009 21:32
what does BLK stand for?
big
On Thu Sep 3 21:38:30 EDT 2009, driv...@0xabadba.be wrote:
To ensure only one thread in the kernel at a time?
yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_lock
it allows only one kernel thread to run at a time.
the pool lock allows as many threads to run as
one would like, but they can't allocate
On Sep 3, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Uriel wrote:
Exactly, I still fail to understand the point of this feature,
function points have worked fine for ages, but then I never understood
any religion, and that is what Apple seems to be all about.
Did you even read the article or any of the examples? There
Did you even read the article or any of the examples? There are plenty
of things that you can do with blocks that you can't with just
function pointers. That's besides the fact that some of them are more
elegantly expressed with blocks that look sort of ugly with function
pointers.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:52 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.netwrote:
Did you even read the article or any of the examples? There are plenty
of things that you can do with blocks that you can't with just
function pointers. That's besides the fact that some of them are more
elegantly
that sucker is on the stack. by-by no-execute stack.
how does it get to the stack? is it just copied from
the text segment or is it compiled at run time?
I don't think I posted the whole code, so that's my bad. The X was on the
stack to begin with as the first X was an automatic
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:44 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.netwrote:
that sucker is on the stack. by-by no-execute stack.
how does it get to the stack? is it just copied from
the text segment or is it compiled at run time?
I don't think I posted the whole code, so that's
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:31 PM, David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:44 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.netwrote:
that sucker is on the stack. by-by no-execute stack.
how does it get to the stack? is it just copied from
the text segment or is it
IMHO, I'd say C is C and I think it's better to leave
it as it is. If you want a language with extra features you can
probably find one.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayananan...@kix.in wrote:
Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
support for blocks
IMHO, I'd say C is C and I think it's better to leave
it as it is. If you want a language with extra features you can
probably find one.
the blocks thing only works (apparently) by having two (visible) classes of
function pointers.
ugh. `clang' is apparently not just the name of the frontend
Perl people love closures. It's one of their common programming techniques.
Closures in C? Way to screw its clarity and closeness to the real (or
virtual) machine. And in the end closure or no closure doesn't change how
the binary looks but allows programmers to pepper source with brain-teasers
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayananan...@kix.in wrote:
Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
support for blocks in C [1]. Blocks basically add closures and anonymous
functions to C (and it's derivatives). Full details with examples are in the
linked
Hi kix (Anant),
I don't like it, but the question is: do you need it?
If you can do the same code with 8c, without much efford, then
probably you don't need it.
kix
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayananan...@kix.in wrote:
Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang),
2009/9/2 Uriel urie...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayananan...@kix.in wrote:
Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
support for blocks in C [1]. Blocks basically add closures and anonymous
functions to C (and it's derivatives). Full
Has anyone actually looked at the spec or is this just armchair philosophy?
I've actually looked at these, and used em a little bit. They're not at all
as bad as I once thought they could be, and the reason they're there is to
work with a concurrency framework onto which blocks can be scheduled
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 10:04 +0200, Anant Narayanan wrote:
Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
support for blocks in C [1]. Blocks basically add closures and
anonymous functions to C (and it's derivatives).
They are NOT closures in my book. They lack
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
