From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Patch for fields of `struct buffer' Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:30:49 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1296505870 20053 80.91.229.12 (31 Jan 2011 20:31:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:31:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Tom Tromey , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 31 21:31:06 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pk0Oq-0004qh-N3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:31:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60757 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pk0Op-0005B3-UU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:30:59 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35865 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pk0Oi-00058v-Si for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:30:55 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pk0Oh-0003dB-NT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:30:52 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:40566 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pk0Oh-0003cs-JY; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:30:51 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ar0FACSqRk1Ld/8K/2dsb2JhbACWWI4gdL4WhU4EhROPaA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,405,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="89984569" Original-Received: from 75-119-255-10.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([75.119.255.10]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 31 Jan 2011 15:30:49 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 1A7CD660DC; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:30:49 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:37:27 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:135349 Archived-At: > I don't think preemptive thread switching is a sensible goal. It is > so much trouble that it isn't worth doing even in the long term. I don't think we will get to choose. The alternative will be to switch to some other language that does provide threading. But let's not get into this discussion because I believe it is not relevant to the problem at hand. > Thus, it is a mistake to do much work now, or complicate the code now, > or cause a slowdown now, for the sake of preemptive thread switching. AFAICT, none of what he did is done because of preemptive threading. IOW, I don't think you can do it much more simply, even if you assume a cooperative threading model. > That is more limited than I thought it was. If it is needed for > non-preemptive thread switching, the benefit would justify the cost, > but I think it isn't needed for that. If this is would only be needed > for preemptive thread switching, I think the loss of clarity and > naturalness of the code is enough reason not to do it. I don't think this is "only needed for preemptive thread scheduling". Stefan