On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 12:17:14PM +, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Stefan Hajnoczi writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 04:41:41PM +, Alex Bennée wrote:
> >>
> >> Stefan Hajnoczi writes:
> >>
> >> > The GThread coroutine backend was a portable
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 04:07:48PM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> The GThread coroutine backend was a portable coroutine implementation.
> Over the years all platforms got their own optimized coroutine
> implementations and nothing uses the GThread backend anymore.
>
> In fact, ./configure
Stefan Hajnoczi writes:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 04:41:41PM +, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>
>> Stefan Hajnoczi writes:
>>
>> > The GThread coroutine backend was a portable coroutine implementation.
>> > Over the years all platforms got their own
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 04:41:41PM +, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Stefan Hajnoczi writes:
>
> > The GThread coroutine backend was a portable coroutine implementation.
> > Over the years all platforms got their own optimized coroutine
> > implementations and nothing uses the
The GThread coroutine backend was a portable coroutine implementation.
Over the years all platforms got their own optimized coroutine
implementations and nothing uses the GThread backend anymore.
In fact, ./configure mentions the GThread backend doesn't work but might
be useful for debugging.
Stefan Hajnoczi writes:
> The GThread coroutine backend was a portable coroutine implementation.
> Over the years all platforms got their own optimized coroutine
> implementations and nothing uses the GThread backend anymore.
>
> In fact, ./configure mentions the GThread